Manual Activity
With COVID-19, you know that in lieu of effective treatment-that which acts on a matter of concern to do anything from contain to reversing it completely, or a successful vaccine-that people are being required to act out an approximation of what treatment and vaccine would achieve, manually.
Similarly, with a diet 'n' exercise plan, you are actioning out what your body can do, manually due to not having the knowledge of how to manipulate the pathways that actually regulate your body's mass.
Difference is, there is no known vaccine for C-19 and treatments are still being tried and examined for efficacy. In the case of body mass, you have been told manual acting out is the way you regulate weight-to divert your mind away from seeking proper means.
Original Guilt
With C-19, collective effort is required. Ditto for starving off body mass, effectively, famine. The only real way to implement famine properly is to mimic it as it happens in real life, environmentally, that is, for everybody. That's what is being alluded to in, "obesogenic environment". This is the source of fat people's sense of guilt, i.e. because of an issue we have, everyone has to go through this. Not, we "self-harm with food" like others do with drugs/alcohol, but that our brains worked out what wasn't so consciously perceived, implement famine totally or don't bother.
Self-Inflicted Famine
The purpose of individual diet plans is for slim people to break ranks. To exempt themselves from the starvation demanded of fat people, understandably, that's our natural instinct for self preservation. However, this hasn't stopped other's from allowing themselves to be used to demand it of fat people and to block any viable alternative. Justifying this on assertions that we "overeat".
Kidding on all the way that fat people are only really being asked to eat the amounts (and types of food) slim people do. That lie is exposed by slimz wanting nothing to do with any collective effort, despite dieting themselves willingly, not under no duress but their own.
Blame
This desire to flee the consequences of their own demands, not hatred of fat people is why we're blamed for being fat. If we are to blame, then we can quarantine, self isolate, socially distance ourselves into our own self imposed and it will work, if we don't then this will be on everyone. Built on top of unfiltered guilt, feeling we must do it alone keeps us in the diet game, stopping it from being fully recognised as a failed as well as a thoroughly unpleasant venture.
Lifestyle
In the case of C-19, coming out of restriction or "lockdown", without effective treatment, cure or vaccine would take us back to before. Similarily, we once assumed slimming was a question of wasting weight, then returning to a normal response to hunger, with a now slimmed body. When it turned out the human body is designed to return itself to its starting point, we were told the equivalent of stay in lockdown forever. Make it your life.
That is what "lifestyle" means.
Clearly absurd and unfeasible. It simply wouldn't work as well as being an unreasonable, unconscionable ask. Except, nothing is ever an unreasonable ask for fat people, only those who've checked out leaving us to it, get to make that call.
Voluntary, Involuntary
Another sublminal that comes into play is the barely sketched out perception that we can alter our metabolic function and outcomes ourselves. We instinctively recognise on some level or other that our involuntary metabolic function is joined to our voluntary conscious functioning, in the form of the same communications system being used for both, the nervous system.
The key issue though is like treatment for C-19, we need genuine scientific inquiry and rigour to bring this properly to the surface. We're stuck in the incompatible opposites of being required to "lose weight" via a means that has failed.
We must be prepared to hold those responsible to account for this, continuing to accept spurious meaningless constructs like 'obesity', acting as if (professional) position guarantees unquestioned good faith, rather than actual actions and behaviour, will continue to support remaining where we are.
Trapped
We have all become trapped in this, and rather like the susceptible and not so susceptable to C-19, have differing interests, yet ultimately those again converge in a collective interest. Unless fat people turn up for ourselves, we will not be able to turn up to stop this crusade sinking all of us.
Showing posts with label BigBonedBulletin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BigBonedBulletin. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 March 2020
Monday, 16 March 2020
Slim Opt-Out
Yes, indeed Ms Rum B. Shit is getting real. Very real for fat people who via COVID-19 are being given even more of a lesson in exactly how they're being misused. Dots are being joined. Try denying 'obesity' is not a professionally led con now.
Activists put it down to hatred of fat people, blaming and shaming. What I've tried to get across is the reasoning behind individuating famine into a self imposed state of being is to exclude slim people from dieting or famine-if you will.
Despite asserting fat people "overeat" by mere fact of our size, ergo, if we ate normal amounts like/what slim people eat, then we too would be(come) slim. They know this to be false because they exempt themselves from, eating like a (mythical) slim i.e. dieting.
It's the diet-weight hypothesis which posits your diet=your size, though tested to descruction remains in place as the basis of all thought on size.
Though body mass is not a disease, it's a metabolic outcome obviously, the policy of social isolation for COVID-19 is happening due to there currently being no effective means to manipulating the body to stop infection or render that null by killing it off swiftly, that is-curative treatment or vaccine/s.
In the case of body weight, white coated professionals refuse point blank to find the correct ways of interacting with metabolic function, using our conscious capacities, insisting instead on famine as the only means of reducing mass.
Rather like social isolation, the best way to implement famine is environmentally, meaning, everybody, that's what's being alluded to by "obesogenic". When the inherent failure of self-imposed famine plays out, attention goes back to where it should have started in the first place, environment.
From y. diet=y.weight to society's weight=society's environment. Same thing, all that differs is number and scale.
From day Z of the modern weight panic, this has been the root of the battle, slim people not being prepared to starve along with fatz, despite them insisting we must. The blaming/shaming of fat people, and the bullshizz employ of "individual responsibility" is about-keeping slim people out of the famine they're insisting upon for us, and advocating because they expect to be left out.
Like those who feel the need to be kept out of social isolation.
Amusingly, people are throwing about "selfish" to those who consider the virus not their problem, but the problem of those who are susceptable to it. That attitude would be fine, if, there was a high degree of ability to manipulate individual function.
The society bending affects are down as much to the absence of such, as any other factor. In the case of weight, that absence is thoroughly contrived, not a matter of inquiry + time.
A young woman was captured on video saying she had compromised immunity but was not worried because she "self-medicated" with supplements, sound just like those people who parrot the: I just need to eat less and move more, line, yet she was called out for being deluded (and self absorbed).
So to repeat, body mass is not 'disease', this is openly admitted; "what if we can our construct disease?" The point is about why fat people are blamed, its for the same reason as those who wish to opt out of their necessary participation in containing COVID-19.
Activists put it down to hatred of fat people, blaming and shaming. What I've tried to get across is the reasoning behind individuating famine into a self imposed state of being is to exclude slim people from dieting or famine-if you will.
Despite asserting fat people "overeat" by mere fact of our size, ergo, if we ate normal amounts like/what slim people eat, then we too would be(come) slim. They know this to be false because they exempt themselves from, eating like a (mythical) slim i.e. dieting.
It's the diet-weight hypothesis which posits your diet=your size, though tested to descruction remains in place as the basis of all thought on size.
Though body mass is not a disease, it's a metabolic outcome obviously, the policy of social isolation for COVID-19 is happening due to there currently being no effective means to manipulating the body to stop infection or render that null by killing it off swiftly, that is-curative treatment or vaccine/s.
In the case of body weight, white coated professionals refuse point blank to find the correct ways of interacting with metabolic function, using our conscious capacities, insisting instead on famine as the only means of reducing mass.
Rather like social isolation, the best way to implement famine is environmentally, meaning, everybody, that's what's being alluded to by "obesogenic". When the inherent failure of self-imposed famine plays out, attention goes back to where it should have started in the first place, environment.
From y. diet=y.weight to society's weight=society's environment. Same thing, all that differs is number and scale.
From day Z of the modern weight panic, this has been the root of the battle, slim people not being prepared to starve along with fatz, despite them insisting we must. The blaming/shaming of fat people, and the bullshizz employ of "individual responsibility" is about-keeping slim people out of the famine they're insisting upon for us, and advocating because they expect to be left out.
Like those who feel the need to be kept out of social isolation.
Amusingly, people are throwing about "selfish" to those who consider the virus not their problem, but the problem of those who are susceptable to it. That attitude would be fine, if, there was a high degree of ability to manipulate individual function.
The society bending affects are down as much to the absence of such, as any other factor. In the case of weight, that absence is thoroughly contrived, not a matter of inquiry + time.
A young woman was captured on video saying she had compromised immunity but was not worried because she "self-medicated" with supplements, sound just like those people who parrot the: I just need to eat less and move more, line, yet she was called out for being deluded (and self absorbed).
So to repeat, body mass is not 'disease', this is openly admitted; "what if we can our construct disease?" The point is about why fat people are blamed, its for the same reason as those who wish to opt out of their necessary participation in containing COVID-19.
Tuesday, 25 February 2020
Role Play
"Two million in UK at risk of type 2 diabetes as obesity crisis grows"
With this sort of incentive (and more) dieting doesn't have to work, it just has to keep being enforced.
NHS chief executive Simon Stevens said “bulging waistlines” were leading to the rise in people living with type 2.Simon Stevens "...a key player in the direction of the NHS under Tony Blair's government", so this isn't about versus, this is the political classes who hold and administer power. His CV, with selected highlights: "NHS Privatiser";
United Health Group Vice-President and President and/or Chief Executive Officer of United Health 2004-2014UHG's UK affiliate is called "Optum". Insurance profit motive depends on denial of claims. "Obesity" is device for the denial of medicine. In other words, what comes after the insurance models denial of claims, is healthcare and medical professionals denial of themselves. One hand is washing the other so to speak.
His duties at United Health included lobbying for the NHS and other European national health services to be included in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
As part of efforts to tackle the problem, a radical new liquid diet will be available on the NHS to put type 2 diabetes into remission. Five thousand patients will be restricted to 800 calories per day for three months in a pilot to be rolled out from April. This will be followed by a further nine months of support to help them maintain weight loss.Obviously, all concerned know "obesity crisis" = evidence of ancient individuated famine's failure. Apart from data capture and mining, self-inducing famine also trains the mind toward invidualised "prevention".
With this sort of incentive (and more) dieting doesn't have to work, it just has to keep being enforced.
Tuesday, 4 February 2020
Knowing no Pain, Knowing no Pleasure
Courtesy of this is thin privilege,
Calling yourself 'obese' and "overweight" like that, means you have experienced all of that-gawked at, health brought up, insulted because of your body- or you wouldn't applying said terms to yourself with such a sense of peace and comfort.
'Obesity' itself is degrading branding and an insult in any way you could define that. It erases your sentience-addressing it to do so- pathologises you, makes you common property, silences you, tells you you are "disease" and not human, whilst knowing full well that you are. That's just the beginning of it. Every time you apply it to yourself, you validate this, hence a lot of fat people's anxiousness, anguish and exhaustion.
"Overweight" is based on a slim centric metric, validating slimness as the only legitimate size. Here is one of those who don't hear any insult to fat people, due to, for example, perceiving that as legitimate critique. We were all like that at one time.
Probably our friend in struggle thought slenderness would render them immune to criticism. Unfortunately for them, back in the day, advocates for anorexics decided to raise awareness.
Up til then, people were very loathe to cross any boundary of enquiring whether a slender person might be so due to anorexia nervosa-were assured to press through that as PWA tended to deny vigorously that they're anorexic.
That broken boundary led to over-familiarity fuelled by that self-righteousness people get when they feel the changing of your body happens from what they say to you. On the heels of that came this angry contempt for someone "not going to get help". See the case of Eugenia Cooney to peep that atmosphere.
In other words, there is a similarity between the firepower aimed at anorexia and fatness, for pretty much the same reasons, coming from the same people, the difference is anorexia does kill.
I genuinely would like your thoughts on my experience: I am severely underweight. I get gawked at, my health brought up, and insulted because of my body by strangers, relentlessly. When I was obese, I never experienced any of that. I actually received way more compliments when i was overweight and when i was obese than i receive at my current weight. I have been respectful and made no negative comments - I'd appreciate if you could respond in the same manner. ThanksWell, we can feel immediately, slim person's energy-I very much doubt s/the(y) is/are "severely underweight" [under what weight? People often have their own ideas about the starting point]. By slim energy, I mean, someone making the minuscule, maximo if it happens to a slim and makes anything negative that happens to a fat, nothing and anything falling short of base negativity, a "positive".
Calling yourself 'obese' and "overweight" like that, means you have experienced all of that-gawked at, health brought up, insulted because of your body- or you wouldn't applying said terms to yourself with such a sense of peace and comfort.
'Obesity' itself is degrading branding and an insult in any way you could define that. It erases your sentience-addressing it to do so- pathologises you, makes you common property, silences you, tells you you are "disease" and not human, whilst knowing full well that you are. That's just the beginning of it. Every time you apply it to yourself, you validate this, hence a lot of fat people's anxiousness, anguish and exhaustion.
"Overweight" is based on a slim centric metric, validating slimness as the only legitimate size. Here is one of those who don't hear any insult to fat people, due to, for example, perceiving that as legitimate critique. We were all like that at one time.
Probably our friend in struggle thought slenderness would render them immune to criticism. Unfortunately for them, back in the day, advocates for anorexics decided to raise awareness.
Up til then, people were very loathe to cross any boundary of enquiring whether a slender person might be so due to anorexia nervosa-were assured to press through that as PWA tended to deny vigorously that they're anorexic.
That broken boundary led to over-familiarity fuelled by that self-righteousness people get when they feel the changing of your body happens from what they say to you. On the heels of that came this angry contempt for someone "not going to get help". See the case of Eugenia Cooney to peep that atmosphere.
In other words, there is a similarity between the firepower aimed at anorexia and fatness, for pretty much the same reasons, coming from the same people, the difference is anorexia does kill.
Monday, 27 January 2020
Academic Standards
Again, it's the remarkable hegemony. People of all political persuasions (un)thinking the same way, saying, the same idiot thing.
"Anti-Science". Keep your eye on what that's supposed to be referring to. Quoting from the linked post,
I can't always be of service, so I tentatively offer a reversal the advice of Journey-Do stop believin'......let go of that feeling, no-wha-o....
Then,
Success would have stopped the crusade for 'obesity' from getting this far and would end it now.
People fighting it is often about identity, but, science itself, isn't, or shouldn't be one.
We're still looking for the precise application of 'anti-science'. So let's try the link itself; "Profs at UW Seattle Asked to Push Progressive Causes in School’s Diversity Guide",
It says emphasis on diversity is the promotion of progressive politics, whilst I would not want to present myself as the progressive-whisperer, diversity seems to me to be an endeavour that easily lends itself to plus ca change, or appearing to change whilst staying the same through, in this case, window-dressing.
File under- evidence for assertion-inconclusive, to put it mildly.
Recap; anti-science, demonstrably true, hypersensitive, progressive, [indicative of] purging opposing viewpoints, refers to not the questioning of why the true nature of metabolic function has entered the status of belief system, political viewpoint, but suggesting that vested interests' insertion of sci-fi should not be jettisoned, but merely stop short of seeking to divide students into its irrelevant categorisation.
These three things mentioned as a trio; the genocidal dispossession of indigenous people, widening the references in illustrative examples and whether to hold off on yet more divisive categorisation of students, have nothing to do with each other.
I'm sure all concerned know this. Such is the desire to keep people in the same place as themselves, that, the words don't matter, they're just there to carry the tune.
Suffice it to say, I don't care who you are, what or who's "side" you are on or think you're on, what you stand for, what you think you stand for, who you are, or think you are, your rank, sex, class or race....
On this, if you continue to allow yourself to be used as a bot to police obedience in others, whilst not engaging the most primitive of your critical faculties, on your own, without being told by those puppeteering you, with your big boy-girl panties on, you're going to have to take an "L".
No matter how safe and secure you feel right now.
"Anti-Science". Keep your eye on what that's supposed to be referring to. Quoting from the linked post,
Acknowledge the University of Washington campus is on land stolen from Native Americans. Use gender-neutral, culturally diverse names in examples. Stop believing being overweight is unhealthy.Then,
I understand how you can acknowledge and use. But I very sincerely don’t understand how you can stop believing.I of course, sincerely believe in that sincerity.
I can't always be of service, so I tentatively offer a reversal the advice of Journey-Do stop believin'......let go of that feeling, no-wha-o....
Then,
I especially don’t understand how you can stop believing something that’s demonstrably true on orders from your employer.If it is demonstrably true, why does it require belief? Belief is assertion in the absence of evidence or conclusive proof otherwise. If you don't believe in what is true, then you are the same as those who peddle 'obesity' cultism who do not believe inducing weight loss using calorie restriction has failed, even though their complaining, nagging and crisis-mongering is premised on that very failure.
Success would have stopped the crusade for 'obesity' from getting this far and would end it now.
I still remember being proud of supporting the party of science and facts. And now we are all about bullying people into believing ridiculous, unscientific crap. It’s embarrassing.Umm, I don't know about proud. I have never thought of science as partisan or identitarian, science is just science, it can unhand anyone at any time. That's why we cannot vaingloriously think we are on its "side", it can pull the rug from those trying to pal up to it, just as well as those trying to fight it. Which we probably all are in some way or t'other.
People fighting it is often about identity, but, science itself, isn't, or shouldn't be one.
We're still looking for the precise application of 'anti-science'. So let's try the link itself; "Profs at UW Seattle Asked to Push Progressive Causes in School’s Diversity Guide",
...the administration seems willing to placate a group of hypersensitive, progressive activist-students and faculty seeking to purge opposing political viewpoints from campus'Kay, so we're also looking for, "hypersensitive", "progressive" and evidence of "purging opposing political viewpoints". Remembering that, manipulating body mass is an issue of physiology, not politics nor belief.
It says emphasis on diversity is the promotion of progressive politics, whilst I would not want to present myself as the progressive-whisperer, diversity seems to me to be an endeavour that easily lends itself to plus ca change, or appearing to change whilst staying the same through, in this case, window-dressing.
File under- evidence for assertion-inconclusive, to put it mildly.
But then it gets legitimate crazy. Writing for Quillette, Reges broke down one recommendation:Can't wait, few things are more tantalising than the prospect of finding out what people think of as cray.
Review of all course materials for inclusiveness. For instance, of a lecture that involves calculating body mass index (BMI) using guidelines from the National Institutes of Health, the report noted that it ‘seems insensitive to present students with a program that would point out that some of them are ‘obese’ while others are ‘normal.’Incidentally, I like that detail of "..using guidelines from the National Institutes of Health,". Still pocket billiards.
Recap; anti-science, demonstrably true, hypersensitive, progressive, [indicative of] purging opposing viewpoints, refers to not the questioning of why the true nature of metabolic function has entered the status of belief system, political viewpoint, but suggesting that vested interests' insertion of sci-fi should not be jettisoned, but merely stop short of seeking to divide students into its irrelevant categorisation.
These three things mentioned as a trio; the genocidal dispossession of indigenous people, widening the references in illustrative examples and whether to hold off on yet more divisive categorisation of students, have nothing to do with each other.
I'm sure all concerned know this. Such is the desire to keep people in the same place as themselves, that, the words don't matter, they're just there to carry the tune.
Suffice it to say, I don't care who you are, what or who's "side" you are on or think you're on, what you stand for, what you think you stand for, who you are, or think you are, your rank, sex, class or race....
On this, if you continue to allow yourself to be used as a bot to police obedience in others, whilst not engaging the most primitive of your critical faculties, on your own, without being told by those puppeteering you, with your big boy-girl panties on, you're going to have to take an "L".
No matter how safe and secure you feel right now.
Sunday, 26 January 2020
The Problem is not Their Illusion, It is Your Dis-illusion
It's a strange feeling when a statement prima facie has merit, yet.... knowing from that will flow only horseshit. "'Fatphobia' and 'fat activism' are helping no one", in terms of overturning quackery in favour of science, that has some truth, however, what follows confirms suspicions,
It's beyond a joke now or bizarre and is entering into a territory above my intellectual pay grade. It is either the rank insanity of brainwashing, cynicism or both.
This nonsense could have been written by any template fascist tool, give or take a few" socialisms" thrown in here and "capitalisms" thrown in there.
Times have changed, the Morning Star used to be the Communist Party of Great Britain's paper of record. A look at the bottom of the article tells you everything you need to know, "Tom Flanagan is communications and media officer for Scottish Young Labour."
Well there you go.
The Labour Party, the clowns who just threw the last election-when they didn't even need to bother-and expect to own the vote of anyone remotely Left of Ghenghis Khan, whilst droning on about "reaching out of your comfort zone".
As is usual with 'obesity' promoting clowns, he drops the usual massive clangers-along with the relatively more minor ones. These people are so unchallenged, they don't have to try. One, makes absolutely no mention of science needing to be used to understand how to alter metabolic function and its outcomes, Two asserting that the Left gets it. Three, that they came a cropper health wise due to ceasing to pathologise their body. Four, acts as if CRIWL is fit for purpose and not a pathology in itself.
Fashioning this typically, as a 'debate' between doing or not doing it, rather than finding a method that does what it is supposed to do is not the stance of anyone who's explored self acceptance with any real thought. It's not an opinion, it's a shift in your internal consciousness. It should change your view about a lot of things and give insight.
The phoney debate posture, is the stance of every fatphobe and yes, fat phobia, despite being a neologism is a thing, it is the learned and/or trained hysterical response to fatness. One of the earliest things a lot of fat people do when they are getting done with inhabiting other people's psychotic delusions is to decompress their learned reaction to their own bodies.
I remember doing this myself, years ago. I looked at myself in the mirror, repeatedly, over months, until I no longer responded with the learned revulsion I'd cherished
The opposite of fat phobia is how we look at slim people. When we see a person who is slim, we see a person, not a pathology. If they are well, they are well, if they are sick, they are afflicted by something, they are not themselves the affliction.
At one point he says,
Imagine that.
Imagine, insisting the problem is not this whole non-strategy and its fail "solution" but people pointing out that the reality of its failure.
In other words, the problem is not the illusion, but the disillusion.
He cannot grasp for himself-because no one has told him-that when you have a kerfuffle like this about something that started off as a simple question of physiological function-how do we reset the body's weight regulation-you have to look at the science that should be at the heart of any question of human biology and ask, why are the professionals making such a mess of this?
When investigating any matter of physiology, one looks to the science to explain and understand what is going on. If that leads to such a lack of clarity and more specifically action that demonstrates grasp, then you know that is the problem, not those it is aimed at.
The fact that this could have been written by anyone in any UK party, is a statement of exactly where UK politics is.
In my late teens and early twenties this idea of 'combatting fatphobia' became prominent on the left — what did listening to this nonsense get me? Type two diabetesSo, not due to you being on course for that diagnosis, with no real means to alter that trajectory then? I've never met a group of people in my life, who are so totally about insisting the way people talk about this is the issue, rather than the state of the science and the lack of it producing effective means doing something about it.
It's beyond a joke now or bizarre and is entering into a territory above my intellectual pay grade. It is either the rank insanity of brainwashing, cynicism or both.
This nonsense could have been written by any template fascist tool, give or take a few" socialisms" thrown in here and "capitalisms" thrown in there.
Times have changed, the Morning Star used to be the Communist Party of Great Britain's paper of record. A look at the bottom of the article tells you everything you need to know, "Tom Flanagan is communications and media officer for Scottish Young Labour."
Well there you go.
The Labour Party, the clowns who just threw the last election-when they didn't even need to bother-and expect to own the vote of anyone remotely Left of Ghenghis Khan, whilst droning on about "reaching out of your comfort zone".
As is usual with 'obesity' promoting clowns, he drops the usual massive clangers-along with the relatively more minor ones. These people are so unchallenged, they don't have to try. One, makes absolutely no mention of science needing to be used to understand how to alter metabolic function and its outcomes, Two asserting that the Left gets it. Three, that they came a cropper health wise due to ceasing to pathologise their body. Four, acts as if CRIWL is fit for purpose and not a pathology in itself.
Fashioning this typically, as a 'debate' between doing or not doing it, rather than finding a method that does what it is supposed to do is not the stance of anyone who's explored self acceptance with any real thought. It's not an opinion, it's a shift in your internal consciousness. It should change your view about a lot of things and give insight.
The phoney debate posture, is the stance of every fatphobe and yes, fat phobia, despite being a neologism is a thing, it is the learned and/or trained hysterical response to fatness. One of the earliest things a lot of fat people do when they are getting done with inhabiting other people's psychotic delusions is to decompress their learned reaction to their own bodies.
I remember doing this myself, years ago. I looked at myself in the mirror, repeatedly, over months, until I no longer responded with the learned revulsion I'd cherished
The opposite of fat phobia is how we look at slim people. When we see a person who is slim, we see a person, not a pathology. If they are well, they are well, if they are sick, they are afflicted by something, they are not themselves the affliction.
At one point he says,
Imagine we dealt with any other disease this way?He's talking about diabetes, so yes, but overall, imagine we treated any aim scientific or otherwise this way. This is a problem, so we aren't just going to solve it, instead, we're just going to keep telling everyone how bad this is, and promote a illusion of a solution that has failed. By using every lever to press people to keep up an endless cycle of this non-solution, we will somehow, bring reality to its knees.
Imagine that.
Imagine, insisting the problem is not this whole non-strategy and its fail "solution" but people pointing out that the reality of its failure.
In other words, the problem is not the illusion, but the disillusion.
He cannot grasp for himself-because no one has told him-that when you have a kerfuffle like this about something that started off as a simple question of physiological function-how do we reset the body's weight regulation-you have to look at the science that should be at the heart of any question of human biology and ask, why are the professionals making such a mess of this?
When investigating any matter of physiology, one looks to the science to explain and understand what is going on. If that leads to such a lack of clarity and more specifically action that demonstrates grasp, then you know that is the problem, not those it is aimed at.
The fact that this could have been written by anyone in any UK party, is a statement of exactly where UK politics is.
Tuesday, 26 November 2019
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.
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.
Thursday, 26 September 2019
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,
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;
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.
There are perhaps more pointed signs,
Science, the thing that leads real but not faux health campaigns and actually works, quackery doesn't.
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.
Friday, 31 May 2019
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.
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 lotThat'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 differentlyThe 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?"
Friday, 18 January 2019
Repeat Fail, Complain About Fail, Repeat Fail, Repeat Complaint About Repeated Fail......
As you know we are all required by health care professionals et al, to be slim and to do it by one method that's a pretty comprehensive failure. Such epic failure cannot be hidden, either stop pretending that we don't all know this, or attack the person. They're to blame, they're doing something wrong, they've failed.
This is a major driver of their attacks on fat people, not deeply held antagnoism. The effect on the targets of this is on the ability to perceive our own actions and their results. It also has led fat people to feel they have no credibility, in this and other areas.
It is this not "disbelief" which prompts policing people into this state of self-incredulity, it is the salvaging of dieting. Belief is faith or assertion in the absence of evidence or conclusive evidence, either for or against. The evidence here is overwhelming, dieting has failed. Every person above an acceptably designated size, who's dieted, is evidence.
Here's a current example of the everlasting cycle to present the individual as defective and dieting as viable. "I lost 13 stone – now I know the truth about obesity" by Nadja Hermann. It's the same old shit its all in your head, but her spin is your problem is your "fat logic" [yup]. This led me assume she was, Marillia Brocchetto "Reddit's bullies pushed me to fight weight gain", turns out not.
Urban Dick defines "fat logic" as,
Herman says,
You're still with the reality that dieting itself is not simply punitive but doesn't work? Allow me to go on. Getting hooked on smack is associamafacated with lower risk of ob, buuuuttt, it is pathological, it can lead to your death, (results not typical).
Dieting is pathological, starvation is a way to die and it doesn't work, i.e. it's not effective, two fails for the price of one. Keep that in mind.
What she's claiming is that if y'all will just stop entertaining fatty thoughts, you'll be mad keen (again) on weight loss dieting, just like you were in the good old days. You know you would.
"Lose weight" =starving off weight. Also, "eating behaviour"=eating. She's emphasising the use of "eating behaviour" because the "obesity community" wants it eating to be viewed as behavioural.
Hunger=signal, eating=response.
This is a major driver of their attacks on fat people, not deeply held antagnoism. The effect on the targets of this is on the ability to perceive our own actions and their results. It also has led fat people to feel they have no credibility, in this and other areas.
It is this not "disbelief" which prompts policing people into this state of self-incredulity, it is the salvaging of dieting. Belief is faith or assertion in the absence of evidence or conclusive evidence, either for or against. The evidence here is overwhelming, dieting has failed. Every person above an acceptably designated size, who's dieted, is evidence.
Here's a current example of the everlasting cycle to present the individual as defective and dieting as viable. "I lost 13 stone – now I know the truth about obesity" by Nadja Hermann. It's the same old shit its all in your head, but her spin is your problem is your "fat logic" [yup]. This led me assume she was, Marillia Brocchetto "Reddit's bullies pushed me to fight weight gain", turns out not.
Urban Dick defines "fat logic" as,
The astounding mental gyrations obese people use to justify their size. Fatlogic never, ever includes eating too much and exercising too little.The notion of anybody "justifying their size" is created by ci/co, something pushed by the 'obesity' crusade.
Herman says,
The term doesn’t mean “fat people’s logic”, but refers to the complex grab bag of supposedly medical facts, well-meaning advice, homegrown ideas and fantasies that make losing weight not only difficult, but impossible.Dickhead's version is really Nadja's, sans the female performance of 'nice'. Sounds like the usual "fat thinking" trope. I remember being haunted by the notion that I was thinking fat thoughts without knowing it. Like a lot of fatz, I ended up becoming hyper vigilant, trying to catch myself out thinking these thoughts that contradicted my overweening desire to be slim. I wish I was joking.
My main goal is to expose the system of supposed wisdom and well-meant advice about obesity and weight loss as nothing but fat logic, as a vicious circle of fallacies and myths. I intend to do it by taking each individual claim of fat logic that together make up that system and directly debunking them, one by one.The "system"?
You're still with the reality that dieting itself is not simply punitive but doesn't work? Allow me to go on. Getting hooked on smack is associamafacated with lower risk of ob, buuuuttt, it is pathological, it can lead to your death, (results not typical).
Dieting is pathological, starvation is a way to die and it doesn't work, i.e. it's not effective, two fails for the price of one. Keep that in mind.
For me breaking the cycle was the pivotal change. As a behavioural therapist, I failed to deal with my own weight for years. The reason is that (behavioural) therapy can only work if we recognise which behaviours we need to change, and we are convinced that therapy will be effective and we will be able to make it work."..can only work.....if we are convinced that therapy will be effective and we will be able to make it work." Wouldn't it be easier to just find something fit for the task that has built-in efficacy? Why should we have to bend and twist up ourselves to "make it work" if it already does work? What is its effectiveness beyond us then? And if we are its effectiveness and we are "defective", this is hardly going to end well is it?
What she's claiming is that if y'all will just stop entertaining fatty thoughts, you'll be mad keen (again) on weight loss dieting, just like you were in the good old days. You know you would.
"Lose weight" =starving off weight. Also, "eating behaviour"=eating. She's emphasising the use of "eating behaviour" because the "obesity community" wants it eating to be viewed as behavioural.
Hunger=signal, eating=response.
Tuesday, 8 January 2019
Bye-Bye Weight Mess
Belated Happy New Year.
What more is to be said about the weight mess?
It all boils down to some rather simple facts. The means we have to reduce body mass-effectively self-induced starvation has proven to be a failure.
This fact although obvious and much commented on, is widely rejected.
That could say it all, except to add something peculiar, professionals wish this failed approach to succeed. In a way, that is the real mystery in all this-why weight loss has to happen through starvation.
You wish to achieve something, fine. You presume it will be in one particular way, okay. It turns out not to be the way, fine. But for some reason, you insist the ends must be achieved via that means and that means alone.
Doesn't make sense.
Why not just find the correct way to achieve it if its so important? Especially when that is your profession's vocation.
That sort of question should always be used to derail any and all weight bollox. Indeed, 2019 is as good a time as any to blow up that bridge.
This neurosis is being driven by research, science and healthcare professionals. If this was about public prejudice, it would have been done long ago.
Professional status is giving it all this its characteristic validation of unreality.
Many people's brains cannot help but see what is out there in plain sight. It's the conscious, social mind that is going along with the pro's flow.
This denial of truth is a decision.
Few other than those whose with a level of trust so unparallelled in modern society-though many of them my gripe otherwise- could underwrite such an Emperor's New Clothes style suspension of disbelief.
We owe so much to them and their professions, maybe they think we owe them unquestioned submission to this lie as a means of some repayment.
I'm sorry if they've taken this to heart, but not even they cannot make this particular fiction walk with a reality this omnipresent and undeniable.
Unless there is a counteracting force to equal or surpass this emotional configuration, this mad hatters ball will continue to trundle on, what it has cost us thus far will soon be made small. Attacking the body as if an imagined "disease" has to stop.
It is nothing personal and should not be taken personally by professionals.
We'll have to pay what we owe in some other way.
Saturday, 22 December 2018
The Emperor's New Clothes
Before I get to part two of "Your weight takes nothing from you", I want to concentrate on re-visiting the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is a good way to grasp the weight mess regards who believes or doesn't believe what, why or whom.
I repeat what I said, there is nothing to believe. The truth is in plain sight. Millions of people have been told they must become slim, not "lose weight" actually become a slim person. Whatever else is going on is swimming around that. The upshot is the means given to people by the science/research/medical/HC establishment doesn't work, as well as being inherently pathological.
The primary activity of said establishment is to appear to rage against this failure, which is their own- as if it is the failure of their targets. In order it seems to get them to continue to keep repeating this failure, as if it reality isn't happening.
This cannot continue. So the issue here is that this alternative to, the truth we can all see is being held in place by reputation of the establishment, aided and abetted by the refusal/inability of anyone/ group to consistently point to the truth and to reject focusing on the fiction being upheld.
How to focus on the facts has already been demonstrated by fat people/activists when they insisted on repeating the fact that "Diets don't work." This prompted attacks from all sides, mainly ad hominem, not to mention doubts within, but fat people kept at it, regardless.
The upshot of this is everyone has been forced to recognise this, whether they like it or not. Even if it means them starting a sentence with such as, "Of course dieting doesn't work....." before they tack back to acting like/insisting it does.
DDW for short, isn't enough to derail the crusade, but it has been forced to yield to that reality to some degree. If fat people did nothing but this, in response to any talk about weight, it would increase the pressure on those seeking to continue the lie.
The truth fight of crusaders is with human biology as it is, rather than as they wish it to be. Fat people are most caught in that crossfire, used to make it look less irrational.
This is the basics of how to fight this crusade, or at least its lies. I'm not saying its all of it, but any less than this is something folks will have to explain. I don't give a damn how you feel about your size, pretty much every fat person should be able by now to point to and stick to the facts, pretty much at all times.
It doesn't matter whether you are desperate to exit fatness or to not. If you wish to be slim, you need the white coats to stop this fuckery, if you wish fatness to be a neutral descriptor/positive state, you need the same.
The crusade is shafting both those who wish to be slim and those who are indifferent or not interested. As well as blocking progress in other areas of metabolic function.
The story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" is about an exceptionally vain(glorious) fashionisto emperor, who becomes a career opportunity for a couple of ambitious grifters.
If fat people are not the people to point to reality, then who? Complaining that others aren't is one thing, but not whilst you aren't yourself doing it. You don't even have to confront the white coated ones if you don't want. You simply have to call nakedness, nakedness, without equivocation or pretence.
Whether you argue with others or not, stick to reality. No matter how many times you get side-tracked, once you recognise you are drifting back to the fiction, stop yourself, then reset and repeat. Eventually, you will learn to stick with realism regardless of the pressure. Just like DDW.
Stick to your guns, until others realise at the very least that you will not be persuaded or coaxed back to supporting their fiction. Yes, it may not stop them as we see above, but what it will do is change you. And that has already proven to matter more than what others are or aren't doing.
If you screen out any bluff and bluster, you are likely to stop participating in someone else's folie de grandeur, at least make them do all that themselves. Let them sweat to maintain😅😏.
So, how does the fable end?
Even if people continue to barrack you for dealing in realness, the truth will prevail. Will that be enough to stop the crusade?
We shall see.
I repeat what I said, there is nothing to believe. The truth is in plain sight. Millions of people have been told they must become slim, not "lose weight" actually become a slim person. Whatever else is going on is swimming around that. The upshot is the means given to people by the science/research/medical/HC establishment doesn't work, as well as being inherently pathological.
The primary activity of said establishment is to appear to rage against this failure, which is their own- as if it is the failure of their targets. In order it seems to get them to continue to keep repeating this failure, as if it reality isn't happening.
This cannot continue. So the issue here is that this alternative to, the truth we can all see is being held in place by reputation of the establishment, aided and abetted by the refusal/inability of anyone/ group to consistently point to the truth and to reject focusing on the fiction being upheld.
How to focus on the facts has already been demonstrated by fat people/activists when they insisted on repeating the fact that "Diets don't work." This prompted attacks from all sides, mainly ad hominem, not to mention doubts within, but fat people kept at it, regardless.
The upshot of this is everyone has been forced to recognise this, whether they like it or not. Even if it means them starting a sentence with such as, "Of course dieting doesn't work....." before they tack back to acting like/insisting it does.
DDW for short, isn't enough to derail the crusade, but it has been forced to yield to that reality to some degree. If fat people did nothing but this, in response to any talk about weight, it would increase the pressure on those seeking to continue the lie.
The truth fight of crusaders is with human biology as it is, rather than as they wish it to be. Fat people are most caught in that crossfire, used to make it look less irrational.
This is the basics of how to fight this crusade, or at least its lies. I'm not saying its all of it, but any less than this is something folks will have to explain. I don't give a damn how you feel about your size, pretty much every fat person should be able by now to point to and stick to the facts, pretty much at all times.
It doesn't matter whether you are desperate to exit fatness or to not. If you wish to be slim, you need the white coats to stop this fuckery, if you wish fatness to be a neutral descriptor/positive state, you need the same.
The crusade is shafting both those who wish to be slim and those who are indifferent or not interested. As well as blocking progress in other areas of metabolic function.
The story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" is about an exceptionally vain(glorious) fashionisto emperor, who becomes a career opportunity for a couple of ambitious grifters.
The two weavers promise him a set of clothes so fine and wonderful that only the great and good in society will be able to see it.In a sense the highlighted is the white coated ones 'invisible', i.e. non-existing, alternative to truth. Fat people are told that we cannot see this alternative they call 'science', because we are unworthy, not because it isn't real. Effectively silencing and sidelining fat people from the common discoure. Whatever we say is wrong, so we can be utterly disregarded. That could be seen as upsetting, but we don't fit into the discourse others are having anyway.
They [the clothes] will be quite invisible to anyone who is stupid, incompetent or unworthy of their position in society.The whole point of reaching a place of self-recognition/acceptance w/e is that we have either seen through this, or at least recognise the received 'wisdom' doesn't add up.
Such a set of clothes would be perfect for a great Emperor. They would suit his sense of self-importance, and their magical properties of invisibility, to the unworthy, would enable him to find out which of his ministers were unfit for their jobs. This is evident when the emperor says, "...and I could tell the wise men from the fools."The emperor's fiction doesn't match the reality we can all see, only the worthy, everyone who is not fat, can see.
When the Emperor finally walks out among his subjects in his non-existent finery, the crowds watch eagerly. They all want to see which of their friends or neighbours are so stupid that they cannot see the clothes. What actually happens, of course, is that none of them see any clothes. Still, no one says anything. Some are too embarrassed to tell the truth. They think that they must be too stupid to see the clothes. Perhaps others believe that to say anything derogatory would be to draw attention to the truth of the Emperor's own stupidity. Perhaps others simply do not wish to be the first to speak out with a contrary voice.This is about where we are with this weight foolishness. I don't want to wear it out, but we saw this the other week with a certain columnist, who knew the NHS was promoting crash dieting, but somehow could quite bring herself to believe this could be so, "Is an NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don’t?" The first line is,
Is a crash diet no longer considered a crash diet because it has been validated by medicine?She knows the answer just as well as anyone else, a diet is a diet no matter who's backing it. But its hard to say in the face of the notion that it is unwise not to uphold white coat pretense.
If fat people are not the people to point to reality, then who? Complaining that others aren't is one thing, but not whilst you aren't yourself doing it. You don't even have to confront the white coated ones if you don't want. You simply have to call nakedness, nakedness, without equivocation or pretence.
Whether you argue with others or not, stick to reality. No matter how many times you get side-tracked, once you recognise you are drifting back to the fiction, stop yourself, then reset and repeat. Eventually, you will learn to stick with realism regardless of the pressure. Just like DDW.
Stick to your guns, until others realise at the very least that you will not be persuaded or coaxed back to supporting their fiction. Yes, it may not stop them as we see above, but what it will do is change you. And that has already proven to matter more than what others are or aren't doing.
If you screen out any bluff and bluster, you are likely to stop participating in someone else's folie de grandeur, at least make them do all that themselves. Let them sweat to maintain😅😏.
So, how does the fable end?
Only one small child, who is far too innocent of all this pretension and social convention, shouts out, "But he hasn't got anything on!" At first, the little boy's father tries to correct the boy, but gradually the news breaks out and everyone finally realises that they are not alone in their inability to see the clothes. Slowly, but surely, everybody finds that there is strength in numbers and they begin to admit there is nothing to see. Realizing how foolish they and the emperor have been, they begin to laugh. The Emperor cringes, but continues with the procession, because to turn back now would be to admit his own gullibility. Better to carry on thinking that he is the only one who has the wisdom to see the clothes than to admit ignorance. His courtiers, likewise, feel they have to continue to live the lie, so they dutifully follow their leader.Don't let sympathy for the white-coated ones inhibit you. I have the utmost respect for many who wear the coat, so I say from a place of high regard, that this is proof that they're riding for a fall. That's a better description of real "tough love".
Even if people continue to barrack you for dealing in realness, the truth will prevail. Will that be enough to stop the crusade?
We shall see.
Tuesday, 18 December 2018
Utilitarian Hate: People Don't Really Really Hate Fat People
Our pre-FA default used to be to not take fat phobia and hatred seriously, now activists are deciding again that the opposite of this is to take it too seriously. The point is not our attitude to fatphobia, it's our attitude to our own experiences and defining those as they are, which will have to be outside the ob cult's framework.
Fat phobia is not at root a heartfelt reaction, it is strategy.
If you know you are not anorexic, yet are being pushed down that route. If you know you are not sick, but are being pushed to pretend you are, why would the fact of white coat professionals using the whipping up of prejudice as a tool and strategy for "weight management" be so beyond either your own or other people's perception?
Why does the need to take all this in an overly literal way keep coming back like a bad smell? What is it supposed to achieve?
Hatred of fat people is mostly falsified performance. Fat phobia is a trained response. That doesn't make it not disturbing, after all, we know that though acting is false, it can still affect us.
Going back to bioethicist Daniel Callahan, hatred of fatness is deemed ethical behaviour. A phobic level response is deemed the correct one. Anything less is deemed backsliding or even corrupt, i.e. "promoting obesity". I made this point more recently when this desire to take this behaviour as if it was somehow a natural response,
It's also a psychological assault to manufacture an imagined pathological state called 'obesity'.
If this organised rancour, this weaponised "peer pressure" is so natural, why is it supported by an industry spitting out "studies" on how fat people are costly parasites draining everyone else dry? Why the creation and ceasless stoking of grievance?
There are plenty of gay fat people out there. How many of you have experienced those moments of extreme tension when there's a palpable threat to your life?
How many people have been beaten to death purely because they are fat? Now consider, what percentage of people wouldn't dream of harming a gay person for their mere existence? But can you find one person who doesn't agree fat people should be constantly harassed?
So why aren't fat bodies piling up in hospitals from life-threatening beatdowns?
The pain of being fat is more emotional attrition. It's the fear of being exposed, humiliated, piled-on, cornered, attacked verbally. The only likely exception to this is in healthcare settings, that's the only place where some fat people actually experience the sort of life threatening assault.
Recently I saw some of a programme which featured a young fat woman who was stuck, under pressure by the usual circling of the white coats. She was told she should be lined up for mutilation, that girl howled like a wolf.
It's clear this is a topdown thing, no matter how much activists collude with their 'betters' to pretend otherwise. To gloam onto the notion that ordinary folks are just savages. That seems to be a class thing and its a little bit shocking how much bourgie fat activists want to go with this.
It's the other way around, people have been told they're supposed to behave towards fat people, by those who administer and influence power. They're doing what they're told. Look at Barbara Ellen the other week, not being able to unequivocally state the bountifully obvious fact of medics promoting starvation dieting.
People are scared not to fall in line. They're becoming like we . Suggesting the fear some of us felt and still feel is a product of being an unquestioning vessel for someone else's malevolent thoughts.
Now isn't that a doozy?
Something about being a container, someone else's tool and puppet shrinks your courage.
The idea of the ob cult has always been, citizens can and should endeavour to control or influence people's weight from the outside in, through abuse and now trolling permanently unsettling them, making it unpleasant to merely exist. This will shove them into escaping to slimness as fast as they can, by any means you force them down, no matter how painful. Given that means is starvation, the pain of being needs to outrank the pain of that.
The complaining about "promoting obesity" happens whenever health trolling is felt to be lacking. Management has to be constant. It is after all supposed to be replacing the functioning of your own body.
It's in the nature of people that when they perform a response, feeling, emotion, notion repeatedly with enough vigour, it becomes more than mere performance. In other words, their attempt to re-size our weight from the outside has reshaped their minds and their emotional landscape.
So no, people don't really, really hate fat people, they're performing their duty, like the good little boys and girls that they are. Just as we used to do with our quest to be slim.
You aren't arguing with their feelings, your arguing with their desire to do what they've been told is the right thing.
Fat phobia is not at root a heartfelt reaction, it is strategy.
Strategy, A plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim. In addition, A strategy is a framework for making decisions about how you will play the game of business.For business read play the game of repressing other people's (and your own weight).
In a 2013 journal article, bioethicist Daniel Callahan argued for more stigma against fat people. “People don’t realize that they are obese or if they do realize it, it’s not enough to stir them to do anything about it,” he tells me. Shame helped him kick his cigarette habit, he argues, so it should work for obesity too.Strategy. The most important thing about this essay-if you can find some way of accessing it, do-is it explains very well how the whole white coat brigade's weight strategy works. Hate-away-other people's-weight.
Other physicians sincerely believe that shaming fat people is the best way to motivate them to lose weight.Strategy. There's nothing remotely sincere about it.
“It’s the last area of medicine where we prescribe tough love,” says Mayo Clinic researcher Sean Phelan.Strategy. Love of any kind is not a "prescription".
If you know you are not anorexic, yet are being pushed down that route. If you know you are not sick, but are being pushed to pretend you are, why would the fact of white coat professionals using the whipping up of prejudice as a tool and strategy for "weight management" be so beyond either your own or other people's perception?
Why does the need to take all this in an overly literal way keep coming back like a bad smell? What is it supposed to achieve?
Hatred of fat people is mostly falsified performance. Fat phobia is a trained response. That doesn't make it not disturbing, after all, we know that though acting is false, it can still affect us.
Going back to bioethicist Daniel Callahan, hatred of fatness is deemed ethical behaviour. A phobic level response is deemed the correct one. Anything less is deemed backsliding or even corrupt, i.e. "promoting obesity". I made this point more recently when this desire to take this behaviour as if it was somehow a natural response,
"I posted a link on Twitter to a 1969 interview with Jim Morrison, in which he said, “Fat is beautiful.” Minutes after posting the link, a friend responded angrily that being fat is unhealthy because it causes high blood pressure and other health problems. This response, I told the audience, is an example of what I call “Fat Derangement Syndrome,” where even people who consider themselves to be open-minded, critical thinkers become outraged if fat is spoken about in any positive way. "That feeling that this is ethical is true internalisation. The feeling that it is somehow wrong not to harass fat people with (increasingly) health-trolling. It is interesting that mainstream activist types and cult promoters love to present the notion that this contrived barracking is deep feeling,
"Fat Derangement Syndrome" is 'obesity'. It's the applied vigilante style, permanent chorus of disapproval, which is supposed to trigger feelings of unwellbeing in fat people. This can be pointed to as the expression of the pathology of 'obesity'/caused by 'obesity'.
There’s a grim caveman logic to our nastiness toward fat people. “We’re attuned to bodies that look different,” says Janet Tomiyama, a stigma researcher at UCLA. “In our evolutionary past, that might have meant disease risk and been seen as a threat to your tribe.” These biological breadcrumbs help explain why stigma begins so early. Kids as young as 3 describe their larger classmates with words like “mean,” “stupid” and “lazy.Do you see the same notion that constant pile-ons, health-trolling, hatred, and fat phobia are so natural even fighting with all our might does nothing? Not only that though remember, 'obesity' is fake, it has to be created. If people just let fat people be, we would not simply decide to make ourselves unhappy, tired and defeated for no reason.
........the most hard-wired problem of all: Our shitty attitudes toward fat people.
It's also a psychological assault to manufacture an imagined pathological state called 'obesity'.
If this organised rancour, this weaponised "peer pressure" is so natural, why is it supported by an industry spitting out "studies" on how fat people are costly parasites draining everyone else dry? Why the creation and ceasless stoking of grievance?
There are plenty of gay fat people out there. How many of you have experienced those moments of extreme tension when there's a palpable threat to your life?
How many people have been beaten to death purely because they are fat? Now consider, what percentage of people wouldn't dream of harming a gay person for their mere existence? But can you find one person who doesn't agree fat people should be constantly harassed?
So why aren't fat bodies piling up in hospitals from life-threatening beatdowns?
The pain of being fat is more emotional attrition. It's the fear of being exposed, humiliated, piled-on, cornered, attacked verbally. The only likely exception to this is in healthcare settings, that's the only place where some fat people actually experience the sort of life threatening assault.
Recently I saw some of a programme which featured a young fat woman who was stuck, under pressure by the usual circling of the white coats. She was told she should be lined up for mutilation, that girl howled like a wolf.
It's clear this is a topdown thing, no matter how much activists collude with their 'betters' to pretend otherwise. To gloam onto the notion that ordinary folks are just savages. That seems to be a class thing and its a little bit shocking how much bourgie fat activists want to go with this.
It's the other way around, people have been told they're supposed to behave towards fat people, by those who administer and influence power. They're doing what they're told. Look at Barbara Ellen the other week, not being able to unequivocally state the bountifully obvious fact of medics promoting starvation dieting.
People are scared not to fall in line. They're becoming like we . Suggesting the fear some of us felt and still feel is a product of being an unquestioning vessel for someone else's malevolent thoughts.
Now isn't that a doozy?
Something about being a container, someone else's tool and puppet shrinks your courage.
The idea of the ob cult has always been, citizens can and should endeavour to control or influence people's weight from the outside in, through abuse and now trolling permanently unsettling them, making it unpleasant to merely exist. This will shove them into escaping to slimness as fast as they can, by any means you force them down, no matter how painful. Given that means is starvation, the pain of being needs to outrank the pain of that.
The complaining about "promoting obesity" happens whenever health trolling is felt to be lacking. Management has to be constant. It is after all supposed to be replacing the functioning of your own body.
It's in the nature of people that when they perform a response, feeling, emotion, notion repeatedly with enough vigour, it becomes more than mere performance. In other words, their attempt to re-size our weight from the outside has reshaped their minds and their emotional landscape.
So no, people don't really, really hate fat people, they're performing their duty, like the good little boys and girls that they are. Just as we used to do with our quest to be slim.
You aren't arguing with their feelings, your arguing with their desire to do what they've been told is the right thing.
Tuesday, 11 December 2018
Why I Don't Have a "Relationship with Food"
The current reign of the diet deranged means a lot of their garbage jargon is being increasingly normalised, foisted on the unwary and the uninterested. One piece of empty phraseology that's achingly impressed with itself is "relationship with food", prefaced by such as "Your" or "What's your?" and the like.
To clear away any potential ambiguity.
I. Do. Not. Have. A. Relationship. With. Food: Full Stop.
Given the only people who appear to have less indifference to the word "NO", usually have to serve time if convicted. I'm going to condescend a few words to explain why folks need to miss me [and I've little doubt plenty others] with this one.
My idea of a relationship, and I'm sure most people's, is based on reciprocity. Meaning you can only have a real relationship with a living entity that has an inner life or consciousness. In other words a sentient being who can return or decline (or indeed instigate) self-directed connection with your good self.
That doesn't have to be human, can be other animals of all types, as long as that creature is capable of responding to your attentions in some meaningful and measurable way.
Yes, a person might say; "Look how s/he goes" about a boat or car or whatever. But we all know that's just some anthropomorphising jazz. You cannot have a relationship with something that isn't alive or doesn't have some kind of neural structure.
If you do not have that, you are effectively engaging in what used to be termed, "mental masturbation". In other words, you are playing with yourself, your gratification depending on the imaginary device of projecting your own feelings onto an object.
s a device its fine, its when you start acting like you do not know this is not going on in your own mind. That said object is actually interacting with you in the real. The ventriloquist's dummy coming to life is always creepier than a talking doll.
This is perhaps another case of a verb "relate" turning into a noun "relationship" without recognising they aren't interchangeable. You can relate to someone without being in or having a relationship with said person.
You are never having a relationship with an object.
Yes, a person might say, "There s/he goes" about a car or a boat, but that's largely a self-amused reference to the amount of effort and or time the person has invested in said object.
Cognitive snaggles of this kind torment stalkers and other miscreants d'amour. Feelings of sufficient ardour can leave the sense that this grand feeling must somehow be returned.The notable thing about sex pests is they are almost always acting on this premise. Often refusing at first to believe the object of their affections could be oblivious to their affections.
The first step in their come down is usually acknowledging that their feelings are theirs and theirs alone.
We've all fallen for this feeling in some way or t'other, we get over it, becoming aware that others think they're having a relationship with us-that they aren't having. We too realise we may well be in that position with others.
We have; ideas, experiences, myths, legends, tales, memories, associations even dreams about and around food, that's inevitable. Examining, altering, dropping them is a worthwhile notion. It doesn't require this infantilising nomenclature.
Women can have thoughts and ideas, we don't have to be treated, nor treat ourselves as infants to do an inventory of them.
Stop babytalking yourselves and other women and for goodness sake men, do not go down a rabbithole you have thus far escaped.
To clear away any potential ambiguity.
I. Do. Not. Have. A. Relationship. With. Food: Full Stop.
Given the only people who appear to have less indifference to the word "NO", usually have to serve time if convicted. I'm going to condescend a few words to explain why folks need to miss me [and I've little doubt plenty others] with this one.
My idea of a relationship, and I'm sure most people's, is based on reciprocity. Meaning you can only have a real relationship with a living entity that has an inner life or consciousness. In other words a sentient being who can return or decline (or indeed instigate) self-directed connection with your good self.
That doesn't have to be human, can be other animals of all types, as long as that creature is capable of responding to your attentions in some meaningful and measurable way.
Yes, a person might say; "Look how s/he goes" about a boat or car or whatever. But we all know that's just some anthropomorphising jazz. You cannot have a relationship with something that isn't alive or doesn't have some kind of neural structure.
If you do not have that, you are effectively engaging in what used to be termed, "mental masturbation". In other words, you are playing with yourself, your gratification depending on the imaginary device of projecting your own feelings onto an object.
s a device its fine, its when you start acting like you do not know this is not going on in your own mind. That said object is actually interacting with you in the real. The ventriloquist's dummy coming to life is always creepier than a talking doll.
This is perhaps another case of a verb "relate" turning into a noun "relationship" without recognising they aren't interchangeable. You can relate to someone without being in or having a relationship with said person.
You are never having a relationship with an object.
Cognitive snaggles of this kind torment stalkers and other miscreants d'amour. Feelings of sufficient ardour can leave the sense that this grand feeling must somehow be returned.The notable thing about sex pests is they are almost always acting on this premise. Often refusing at first to believe the object of their affections could be oblivious to their affections.
The first step in their come down is usually acknowledging that their feelings are theirs and theirs alone.
We've all fallen for this feeling in some way or t'other, we get over it, becoming aware that others think they're having a relationship with us-that they aren't having. We too realise we may well be in that position with others.
We have; ideas, experiences, myths, legends, tales, memories, associations even dreams about and around food, that's inevitable. Examining, altering, dropping them is a worthwhile notion. It doesn't require this infantilising nomenclature.
Women can have thoughts and ideas, we don't have to be treated, nor treat ourselves as infants to do an inventory of them.
Stop babytalking yourselves and other women and for goodness sake men, do not go down a rabbithole you have thus far escaped.
Thursday, 6 December 2018
Being Beasty
Forcing perceptions, experiences, actions, results and other reality into the cult commandments has this effect, "How to avoid losing your memory in the digital age",
I call it being an obot. The non-existent "food addiction" is an example of people making their experience fit the script. Their truth feels like the impostor. All realness is for them located with the cultists giving them orders. At its most extreme it becomes a kind of senility, which is pertinent given cultists continue to claim their construct is related to dementia.
Regardless of size, each person has to decide whether they wish to be an obot or to retain their own minds.
"Is the NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don't?" The reference is to re-emergence of starvation or VLCD, 800 calorie a day soups 'n' shakes diet. It's being sprung on diabetics, by people with proxy-anorexia, on account of potential desperation to temper their condition. Ob was supposed to fulfil this role, but is floundering, on account of its evident falseness.
Not that there isn't an intent to use this to starve off weight too, the acceptability of stomach amputation to achieve starvation is probably what has enabled both to be brought back.
Research, Medical and healthcare professionals, along with the rest of the white coated professions have always been the instigators and/or supporters of the starving of fat people and anyone who wishes to lose weight. The famous 1959 Stunkard/Maclaren-Hume study will tell you that. Go back further, centuries into history and you'll find the same ideas about torturing fat bodies.
Barbara Ellen knows the truth-look at the title of her piece, but, she too is wrestling with the surround pressing minds to force what they know into the ob lie mincer. A VLCD is the exactly the same whoever is pushing it. The same doctors warned us off for years, when they'd led to one too many injuries and deaths.
The slimming industry has faded before. The roaring twenties created conditions for commercialised slimming, that died down and came back in the 1960s, when Jean Nidetch came up with weight watchers.
All the while doctors where not only the contrivers and peddlers of all major imprints of eat less/move more, they routinely funnelled their patients to the slimming industry, not seeing it as their business.
It came crashing to earth some time around the 1990s, as people noticed they weren't getting any slimmer despite the efforts they were putting forth. Medics again stepped in to salvage it - health became the overriding emphasis to get people to keep repeating diet failure. Avoidance of death rather than other motives became the excuse.
Currently, the slimming industry is moving away from obvious endorsement of starvation, following the lifestyle line-which wasn't theirs either. Even fat people who had wanted to be slim at any costs learnt it is possible to exhaust your desire for something, if the obstacle in its way is too insurmountable.
Public awareness is the real motor for pushing starvation back into the medical sphere, to try and use that to force people to repeat their failure,
Though drugs and mutilation are being added to the weight loss mix, it's unlikely to reverse weight much if at all. Diabetes will probably continue to increase. Incidentally, fatty viscera is associated with weight rebound and triggering diabetes.
Though the evidence is not conclusive-to my knowledge-it is serious enough to warrant settling once and for all. I'm talking of a real standard of evidence, not "seemingly mainly prompted by the results of a rather small trial from a year ago." This is honestly something I've only seen in this area, it is flagrantly unprofessional.
There are at least two pathways, one, the exhaustion of the glucose receptors that tends to occur in the early stage of a CRIWL effort-sometimes referred to as the "water weight" phase and the inducement of metabolic conservation, similar to aspects of hibernation in other mammals.
This "metabolic depression", an excellent way of putting it by the way, is also implicated as a trigger of fatty build up in the viscera;
The pioneering treatment for this turned out to be a discovery of a metabolic feature, Leptin. Discovered under the banner of 'obesity' yes, but dealing with physiological function, as it is. Leptin is a chemical made by the human body. Fat people are said-in the main-to have an abundance of it.
If the most effective reverser of fatty viscera is activating and altering the settings of metabolic features, usually built into the body, then it is more evidence of the body itself as the primary manager of its own metabolic function, which includes weight. Ditto metabolic snafus.
It's a question of accessing those properly and for some reason, the white-coated ones have never really wanted this.
If we the public had not become so pitifully craven in an increasingly feudalistic era, we might realise this is a rare instance of the professionals caught slipping in a way that can be clearly seen by all.
By rights, this should be the moment when they encounter the humbling they've been way too happy to enjoy at our expense. Time and again, their discoveries have challenged and broken some of our most sacred and preciously held beliefs about ourselves and the ways we live. Shaking collective and individual awareness to its core.
We've had to wear it whilst they've mocked us with lofty disdain.
Now its their turn.
For some reason, they cannot get over the failure of starving people, allowing fanatical failed anorexic dietitians et al to have their way with the unwary, whilst the more rational stand in the background allowing and enabling them. It's time for the public, for the lay(wo)man to laugh and point.
To give the white coats a massive well deserved wedgie. Believe me when I say, they need it. Though they'll object, nothing proves this more than their deranged psychotic breakdown over people's size.
In the end it boils down to a test of character. The Emperors are buck naked, with their bits swinging before our eyes. How many of us have the self possession to be that little boy who points this out, refusing to permit ridicule, theirs or their tools to stop us?
On this one, balls in your court Barbara and you are on your own together with the rest of us who cannot pretend we don't know better. Sadly for now, this seems to be too little comfort.
Prove me wrong.
With Google taking the place of memory, many worry that a vital faculty is eroding.What is assumed to be created by cyberspace is merely a(nother) example of said problem. Instead of goo-goo, read being the ob construct script.
I call it being an obot. The non-existent "food addiction" is an example of people making their experience fit the script. Their truth feels like the impostor. All realness is for them located with the cultists giving them orders. At its most extreme it becomes a kind of senility, which is pertinent given cultists continue to claim their construct is related to dementia.
Regardless of size, each person has to decide whether they wish to be an obot or to retain their own minds.
"Is the NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don't?" The reference is to re-emergence of starvation or VLCD, 800 calorie a day soups 'n' shakes diet. It's being sprung on diabetics, by people with proxy-anorexia, on account of potential desperation to temper their condition. Ob was supposed to fulfil this role, but is floundering, on account of its evident falseness.
Not that there isn't an intent to use this to starve off weight too, the acceptability of stomach amputation to achieve starvation is probably what has enabled both to be brought back.
Research, Medical and healthcare professionals, along with the rest of the white coated professions have always been the instigators and/or supporters of the starving of fat people and anyone who wishes to lose weight. The famous 1959 Stunkard/Maclaren-Hume study will tell you that. Go back further, centuries into history and you'll find the same ideas about torturing fat bodies.
Over the centuries, suggested strategies for losing weight have included bitter tonics, bleeding, sea air, amphetamines, Turkish baths, tapeworms, purgatives, low-fat diets, high-fat diets, cinnamon, more sleep, less sleep, and the “vigorous massage of the body with pea-flour.” The Roman emperor Aurelian advised rubbing cloth over body fat to get rid of it....In 1954, a Swedish doctor decided to bypass segments of dogs’ intestinal tracts. He hoped to curtail the time and space that the body had to absorb calories. The animals subsequently lost weight, and a research doctor observed, “This questionable method of controlling obesity will have the necessary experimental foundation.”Nor is there anything new about being supervised by medics whilst starving, the 1959 study was prompted by the failure of those under the supervision of the study's authors.
Barbara Ellen knows the truth-look at the title of her piece, but, she too is wrestling with the surround pressing minds to force what they know into the ob lie mincer. A VLCD is the exactly the same whoever is pushing it. The same doctors warned us off for years, when they'd led to one too many injuries and deaths.
The slimming industry has faded before. The roaring twenties created conditions for commercialised slimming, that died down and came back in the 1960s, when Jean Nidetch came up with weight watchers.
All the while doctors where not only the contrivers and peddlers of all major imprints of eat less/move more, they routinely funnelled their patients to the slimming industry, not seeing it as their business.
It came crashing to earth some time around the 1990s, as people noticed they weren't getting any slimmer despite the efforts they were putting forth. Medics again stepped in to salvage it - health became the overriding emphasis to get people to keep repeating diet failure. Avoidance of death rather than other motives became the excuse.
Currently, the slimming industry is moving away from obvious endorsement of starvation, following the lifestyle line-which wasn't theirs either. Even fat people who had wanted to be slim at any costs learnt it is possible to exhaust your desire for something, if the obstacle in its way is too insurmountable.
Public awareness is the real motor for pushing starvation back into the medical sphere, to try and use that to force people to repeat their failure,
the NHS inadvertently endorsed crash dieting, lending medical authority to something that for so many leads to unsupervised, self-sabotaging, soul-destroying yo-yoing? I’d love to learn in, say, five to 10 years’ time, that this plan to reduce the numbers of British diabetics has proved wildly successful. Sadly, the continuing dominance of the global diet industry suggests otherwise.Its direct not inadvertent, nor does anyone need to sabotage even if they wanted to, dieting fails on its own, it's just the wrong tactic. Try to stay up late by will and the urge to sleep will creep through your body, until it overtakes your body.
Though drugs and mutilation are being added to the weight loss mix, it's unlikely to reverse weight much if at all. Diabetes will probably continue to increase. Incidentally, fatty viscera is associated with weight rebound and triggering diabetes.
Though the evidence is not conclusive-to my knowledge-it is serious enough to warrant settling once and for all. I'm talking of a real standard of evidence, not "seemingly mainly prompted by the results of a rather small trial from a year ago." This is honestly something I've only seen in this area, it is flagrantly unprofessional.
There are at least two pathways, one, the exhaustion of the glucose receptors that tends to occur in the early stage of a CRIWL effort-sometimes referred to as the "water weight" phase and the inducement of metabolic conservation, similar to aspects of hibernation in other mammals.
This "metabolic depression", an excellent way of putting it by the way, is also implicated as a trigger of fatty build up in the viscera;
The NHS plans to help people shed the fat that builds up around internal organs..Visceral fat is an inherent feature of a rare condition called lipodystrophy. People with it have that and other metabolic problems on an unparallelled level and extent to the average target of the crusade.
He* was interested in insulin resistance, the cause of Type 2 diabetes, and had assumed it resulted from obesity. But people with lipodystrophy had the most severe insulin resistance he had ever seen, and they were far from obese.[*Dr. Simeon Taylor, who was the chief of the diabetes branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases]
The pioneering treatment for this turned out to be a discovery of a metabolic feature, Leptin. Discovered under the banner of 'obesity' yes, but dealing with physiological function, as it is. Leptin is a chemical made by the human body. Fat people are said-in the main-to have an abundance of it.
If the most effective reverser of fatty viscera is activating and altering the settings of metabolic features, usually built into the body, then it is more evidence of the body itself as the primary manager of its own metabolic function, which includes weight. Ditto metabolic snafus.
It's a question of accessing those properly and for some reason, the white-coated ones have never really wanted this.
If we the public had not become so pitifully craven in an increasingly feudalistic era, we might realise this is a rare instance of the professionals caught slipping in a way that can be clearly seen by all.
By rights, this should be the moment when they encounter the humbling they've been way too happy to enjoy at our expense. Time and again, their discoveries have challenged and broken some of our most sacred and preciously held beliefs about ourselves and the ways we live. Shaking collective and individual awareness to its core.
We've had to wear it whilst they've mocked us with lofty disdain.
Now its their turn.
For some reason, they cannot get over the failure of starving people, allowing fanatical failed anorexic dietitians et al to have their way with the unwary, whilst the more rational stand in the background allowing and enabling them. It's time for the public, for the lay(wo)man to laugh and point.
To give the white coats a massive well deserved wedgie. Believe me when I say, they need it. Though they'll object, nothing proves this more than their deranged psychotic breakdown over people's size.
In the end it boils down to a test of character. The Emperors are buck naked, with their bits swinging before our eyes. How many of us have the self possession to be that little boy who points this out, refusing to permit ridicule, theirs or their tools to stop us?
On this one, balls in your court Barbara and you are on your own together with the rest of us who cannot pretend we don't know better. Sadly for now, this seems to be too little comfort.
Prove me wrong.
Tuesday, 6 November 2018
Viner Doll Emission
What in the SEO is this?
Given the endless moaning about increase in societal body mass, its obvious that this is irrelevant relic of history. Science has produced a stream of "miracle drugs" [i.e. drugs that actually work], so there's a sense that an effective intervention should have arrived long ago. People taught slimming drugs are the "holy grail", will be on the look out for them.
Virtually any slimming drug ever promoted by health care has been harmful, ineffective, often both.
It is still entirely rational to sense changing your weight is inherently a trivial non-issue that should be something your body does whilst you get on with your life, not something you have to permanently sink significant parts of your conscious bandwidth too, something that configuration of your brain was never designed for.
Every time life throws a curveball, you're supposed to expect to fall off, imagine if contraception "worked" that way.
Rather than face facts the guardian appears to be continuing to double down on its attempts to salvage itself at least in part by using the forces of 'obesity' promotion + commercial slimming. Writer Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett just sounds like another transmission outlet for her mistress's voice.
When guardianwoman especially tries to release their inner conservative on other women in this way, it's like women who'd tell their daughters to stay in abusive relationships due to the "sanctity of marriage", not convincing. To be that, you have to apply that same level of empty conservatism to yourself, and they most definitely don't.
When Rosie Boycott-seen over here as a pioneering second waver-claimed 'obesity' was a side effect of feminism,
Look at the tone of RLC's previous article, we can see how easily her same dosage of tendentious condescension can be applied, "How to refocus the spotlight on female writers"? "hard work and patience." ~ Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett.
How helpful.
It's hard to take being expected to feel unworthy of benefiting from accurate and relevant science from those with such lofty expectations of life. I don't share those, I just want people to be able to alter their own bodies themselves, without trauma or pathology.
Why are we able to pull the desire to be an anorexic athlete out of our arses, but women can't just bow down to lesser demands made on them? If this isn't a thing, others seem such non-issues.
We cannot be on the same page if there is this chasm of expectation.
Feminism is assumed to be for the bourgie/haute-bourgeoisie + upper class women isn't it? At times like this, they can't even be bothered to hide it.
Feminists? Selfists, more like. Not even choosy-choice can make them pretend we should be allowed to choose whether to inflict this on ourselves. Feminism is an exemption for them from patriarchal dictates, the rest of us can just have good old misogyny.
In case the likes of Katharine Viner don't want to get it, way more than the hard work and patience required for any reasonable aim has been expended, nothing we have done or will do, no sacrifice we have made or can make, no costs we have paid or will pay, not even our own lives will ever be proof enough for anyone, including the sorority.
The 'obesity' crusade has weakened women, and it's weakened and exposed feminism.
I don't care what the media is getting for this shit, keep supporting it and we'll continue who applies that term to no-one but their own supposedly elevated class or anyone they slum-to-anoint.
Elaine Gormley was desperate when she turned to slimming pills. She had been obese since childhood, but lost a significant amount of weight by going to Slimming W💀rld classes in her early 20s. One in three slimmers have purchased pills online, according to the joint #FakeMeds survey by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Slimming W💀rld.......Golder and Gormley eventually lost their weight healthily, thanks to Slimming W💀rld.Sense a running theme here? It's supposed to be hidden by asking a question with an obvious answer; Why is the market for slimming pills booming?
“Everything I read and saw on TV said obesity was linked to every cancer you could imagine. It frightened me into thinking, ‘You’ve got to do something, you’ve only got yourself here for the kids now,” she says.The 'obesity' blockade on relevance if not science, supports the weight must be lowered solely through calorie restriction and/or exercise purging, often for life rule.
Given the endless moaning about increase in societal body mass, its obvious that this is irrelevant relic of history. Science has produced a stream of "miracle drugs" [i.e. drugs that actually work], so there's a sense that an effective intervention should have arrived long ago. People taught slimming drugs are the "holy grail", will be on the look out for them.
Virtually any slimming drug ever promoted by health care has been harmful, ineffective, often both.
It is still entirely rational to sense changing your weight is inherently a trivial non-issue that should be something your body does whilst you get on with your life, not something you have to permanently sink significant parts of your conscious bandwidth too, something that configuration of your brain was never designed for.
Every time life throws a curveball, you're supposed to expect to fall off, imagine if contraception "worked" that way.
Rather than face facts the guardian appears to be continuing to double down on its attempts to salvage itself at least in part by using the forces of 'obesity' promotion + commercial slimming. Writer Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett just sounds like another transmission outlet for her mistress's voice.
A real Viner doll in fact. The latest in a lengthening line, including token males Denis Campbell and George Monbiot.When it comes to losing weight, most of us know the only real way to do it is a sustained period of healthy eating and exercise, requiring hard work and patience.
When guardianwoman especially tries to release their inner conservative on other women in this way, it's like women who'd tell their daughters to stay in abusive relationships due to the "sanctity of marriage", not convincing. To be that, you have to apply that same level of empty conservatism to yourself, and they most definitely don't.
When Rosie Boycott-seen over here as a pioneering second waver-claimed 'obesity' was a side effect of feminism,
A food expert and adviser to Sadiq Khan has claimed the current obesity crisis was fuelled by feminism as more women swapped the kitchen for the workplace.Feminists were'n't falling over themselves to say; "If we're pushed to cook everything from scratch around work and/or other duties; hard work and patience shall overcome",
The rightwing media made its mind up about working mothers long ago. Don’t expect a groundbreaking Harvard study to change itI won't expect the reality of the failure of calorie restriction dieting to do any such either. Complaining about the extent of BMI 30 + is complaining about the failure of slimming industry and its non-existent 'product' of telling people to starve and purge off weight.
Look at the tone of RLC's previous article, we can see how easily her same dosage of tendentious condescension can be applied, "How to refocus the spotlight on female writers"? "hard work and patience." ~ Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett.
How helpful.
Women too often have their lives rather than their books reviewed.Oh I'm feeling that, are you? When slimy arseholes just keep making shit about you or your life or your supposed personal failings when its really about thoroughly contrived systemic failures,
...following a breakup and an operation, the 29-year-old from Belleek in County Fermanagh had gained all 10 stone 6lb of it back.“I lost my focus. I felt I was unloved,” she says.Articles about giving working mothers, mothers or women a break from pointless exacting standards, play up such a glaring exemption. Having a part-time extra job acting out function your body could easily do itself,is no way to live.
It's hard to take being expected to feel unworthy of benefiting from accurate and relevant science from those with such lofty expectations of life. I don't share those, I just want people to be able to alter their own bodies themselves, without trauma or pathology.
Why are we able to pull the desire to be an anorexic athlete out of our arses, but women can't just bow down to lesser demands made on them? If this isn't a thing, others seem such non-issues.
We cannot be on the same page if there is this chasm of expectation.
Feminism is assumed to be for the bourgie/haute-bourgeoisie + upper class women isn't it? At times like this, they can't even be bothered to hide it.
Feminists? Selfists, more like. Not even choosy-choice can make them pretend we should be allowed to choose whether to inflict this on ourselves. Feminism is an exemption for them from patriarchal dictates, the rest of us can just have good old misogyny.
In case the likes of Katharine Viner don't want to get it, way more than the hard work and patience required for any reasonable aim has been expended, nothing we have done or will do, no sacrifice we have made or can make, no costs we have paid or will pay, not even our own lives will ever be proof enough for anyone, including the sorority.
The 'obesity' crusade has weakened women, and it's weakened and exposed feminism.
I don't care what the media is getting for this shit, keep supporting it and we'll continue who applies that term to no-one but their own supposedly elevated class or anyone they slum-to-anoint.
Tuesday, 30 October 2018
Nutrional Ire
Here's something to bear in mind when it comes to food, the inherent aggression waiting to come out of something we need to live. "Waitrose Food editor proposes articles on 'killing vegans one by one' after journalist pitches plant-based recipe ideas".
What's demonstrated here is what it looks like when the person has no such sense that they are any such thing, recognising it as a problem outside herself. It affects the way she responds, indeed questions the source. Food touches on people's survival instincts, any sense of perceived threat to the supply of that can set of a visceral instinctive reaction, that may surprise even the respondent.
Fat people are routinely cornered into playing out calorie restriction-by everyone. The logic of enforced cal res though, as I've repeatedly stated is a threat to the overall supply of sufficient food, our brains worked that out pretty much as a matter of course. It's the source of the desire to isolate fat people in self-starvation, not blame, that's in service to the desire to remove the threat of cal res.
For fat people, this was the root of our first feelings of guilt-that by our 'sin' we would threaten the health or life of those less prone or able to store energy. We didn't wish to, that's why we accepted our isolation.
In those people and others, the feeling was of the logic of cal res putting their needs second, as prioritisation of cal res-in the food supply-must do, logically. This happened outside all our mind's [conscious] awareness, but not the body's, strange though that may seem to hear.
And no, this isn't about "greed" it's down to the insistence on altering the food supply, rather than physiological function. This is wholly irrational.
It's yet another set-to contained in this mass delusion. This prioritisation equation-cal res before the storing less- hasn't manifested thus far because those less prone to storing energy have the upper hand. The food supply is still directed by their needs, which are really the same as all our needs, if it wasn't for this neurosis.
Storing less before cal res, makes sense in terms of democracy, but not in terms of most effective enforcement of cal res. Meaning, 'obesity' peddlers routine runs wholly against democracy and in accord with dictatorship, as anyone paying attention to the rights of the targets of this will have noted-it's just not using the usual political language, instead it uses medical and pseudo-medical(ised) jargon.
Democracy is not supposed to lead to this sort of dictatorship through the food supply. One can partly come about though, either as a result of a political decisions + internal/external blockade trifecta-like Venezuela or some other combination of policies, things such as "welfare reform" along with the kind of interference demanded by crusading declarations of war.
You can see how quickly threats to the food supply leads to declarations of death to those perceived as posing the threat. That should be borne in mind before personalising rage coming at you.
Ms Nelson....had suggested a regular series on vegan cooking, featuring recipes, commentary and news. In an emailed respond to her pitch last week, the magazine editor wrote: “Hi Selene. Thanks for this. How about a series on killing vegans, one by one. Ways to trap them? How to interrogate them properly? Expose their hypocrisy? Force-feed them meat? Make them eat steak and drink red wine?“The man was clearly joking, but his remarks still disturbed,
”I've never seen anything like it,” she told BuzzFeed News: “I've written about many divisive topics, like capital punishment and murder cases and domestic violence, and I’ve never had a response like that to any of my articles or pitches.Her shock is similar to that of many fat peoples', activist or not. The conclusion tends to be, this is straight hatred of fat people-because they expect and assume fat people are that hateable/hate-worthy.
What's demonstrated here is what it looks like when the person has no such sense that they are any such thing, recognising it as a problem outside herself. It affects the way she responds, indeed questions the source. Food touches on people's survival instincts, any sense of perceived threat to the supply of that can set of a visceral instinctive reaction, that may surprise even the respondent.
Fat people are routinely cornered into playing out calorie restriction-by everyone. The logic of enforced cal res though, as I've repeatedly stated is a threat to the overall supply of sufficient food, our brains worked that out pretty much as a matter of course. It's the source of the desire to isolate fat people in self-starvation, not blame, that's in service to the desire to remove the threat of cal res.
For fat people, this was the root of our first feelings of guilt-that by our 'sin' we would threaten the health or life of those less prone or able to store energy. We didn't wish to, that's why we accepted our isolation.
In those people and others, the feeling was of the logic of cal res putting their needs second, as prioritisation of cal res-in the food supply-must do, logically. This happened outside all our mind's [conscious] awareness, but not the body's, strange though that may seem to hear.
And no, this isn't about "greed" it's down to the insistence on altering the food supply, rather than physiological function. This is wholly irrational.
It's yet another set-to contained in this mass delusion. This prioritisation equation-cal res before the storing less- hasn't manifested thus far because those less prone to storing energy have the upper hand. The food supply is still directed by their needs, which are really the same as all our needs, if it wasn't for this neurosis.
Storing less before cal res, makes sense in terms of democracy, but not in terms of most effective enforcement of cal res. Meaning, 'obesity' peddlers routine runs wholly against democracy and in accord with dictatorship, as anyone paying attention to the rights of the targets of this will have noted-it's just not using the usual political language, instead it uses medical and pseudo-medical(ised) jargon.
Democracy is not supposed to lead to this sort of dictatorship through the food supply. One can partly come about though, either as a result of a political decisions + internal/external blockade trifecta-like Venezuela or some other combination of policies, things such as "welfare reform" along with the kind of interference demanded by crusading declarations of war.
You can see how quickly threats to the food supply leads to declarations of death to those perceived as posing the threat. That should be borne in mind before personalising rage coming at you.
Thursday, 25 October 2018
A(nother) Short Take on Addiction
Some other post has made me think of another way of describing (opiate) drug addiction. Imagine a self-charging phone. This phone helps power itself with what I call pleasure chemicals, basically a group term for chemicals that we perceive as giving us feelings of pleasure and enhanced well being, they include chemicals labelled "reward", reinforcers, motivators and natural painkillers amongst others. They enable us to function properly.
Imagine charging the phone with one of these chemicals, in order to "touch the sky" get some kind of extra performance from the phone. The phone responds to this outer charging by reducing the level of its own charging, in order to stop it from exploding.
When the extra charge wears off, the phone's inner charging is restored to normal.
If you repeat the extra charging hard enough and often enough, the ability of the phone to restore its charge to normal becomes compromised, a part or two gets damaged from having to take this emergency measure to often. It wasn't designed to be a regular function.
At some point full restoration is not happening, the phone is permanently undercharged, making you reliant on charging it up. At this point, drug users say; "I don't take drugs to get high, just to get by." To function.
That's basically drug dependence-on an outer supply.
There cannot be any such thing as "food addiction". Food is a necessity and outer supplied. We are all "addicts", you cannot not be addicted to or physiologically dependent on food, full stop. People need to use such terms properly, or they quickly cease to define anything specific, this opens them up to be applied to anything the powerful and cynical feel like and used to label us sick when we aren't. For the purposes of removing our freedoms and civil rights as is increasingly happening to people on the grounds of weight.
It's about time people who like to abuse terms because, "I feel like this is what I'm suffering" are told to knock it off as they don't bother to consider the consequences of their solipsism. There has already been way too much suffering brought about by quackery and false use of defined medical terms should come under that title.
If you wish to reduce weight through reducing intake and wish to try to make that happen by cutting out certain foods, i.e. sugary and/or fatty [depending on which cycle of the macro nutrient whirl is currently fashionable]. Your continued hunger function is not "addiction" or "craving" its still just hunger.
Re-framing is not magic.
If you choose to starve weight off, you will continue to experience that. Whatever food you cut out, as long as it provides you with sufficient energy. Often repeated dieting increases hunger for these foods precisely because they are targeted for exclusion and even because they are more efficient means of taking in energy.
Repeated denial of energy and/or the repeated threat of denial of energy, makes your energy supply insecure. This can make your body favour the most efficient and effective means of taking in energy, sugar and fat for example.
What you are supposed to do instead is to reduce your hunger function, which will make you eat less. Awful abomination though it is, the experiment of weight diet gastrectomy demonstrates this. Not only does it show that, it shows that appetite, which is really what this is about, is also part of hunger function. Reduce it and you're likely to reduce your hunger for all foods including sweet/fatty ones.
In reality hunger is an all body process that is collated in the brain and then responded to. Removing a major digestive organ curtails the body's ability to produce hunger at an efficient and normal level.
Hunger (and appetite) function can be adjusted without tearing people up. But for some reason, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists prefer to cut-em-up-rough. Or to seek drugs. Well, as long as people allow them to get away with this, they'll continue.
Imagine charging the phone with one of these chemicals, in order to "touch the sky" get some kind of extra performance from the phone. The phone responds to this outer charging by reducing the level of its own charging, in order to stop it from exploding.
When the extra charge wears off, the phone's inner charging is restored to normal.
If you repeat the extra charging hard enough and often enough, the ability of the phone to restore its charge to normal becomes compromised, a part or two gets damaged from having to take this emergency measure to often. It wasn't designed to be a regular function.
At some point full restoration is not happening, the phone is permanently undercharged, making you reliant on charging it up. At this point, drug users say; "I don't take drugs to get high, just to get by." To function.
That's basically drug dependence-on an outer supply.
There cannot be any such thing as "food addiction". Food is a necessity and outer supplied. We are all "addicts", you cannot not be addicted to or physiologically dependent on food, full stop. People need to use such terms properly, or they quickly cease to define anything specific, this opens them up to be applied to anything the powerful and cynical feel like and used to label us sick when we aren't. For the purposes of removing our freedoms and civil rights as is increasingly happening to people on the grounds of weight.
It's about time people who like to abuse terms because, "I feel like this is what I'm suffering" are told to knock it off as they don't bother to consider the consequences of their solipsism. There has already been way too much suffering brought about by quackery and false use of defined medical terms should come under that title.
If you wish to reduce weight through reducing intake and wish to try to make that happen by cutting out certain foods, i.e. sugary and/or fatty [depending on which cycle of the macro nutrient whirl is currently fashionable]. Your continued hunger function is not "addiction" or "craving" its still just hunger.
Re-framing is not magic.
If you choose to starve weight off, you will continue to experience that. Whatever food you cut out, as long as it provides you with sufficient energy. Often repeated dieting increases hunger for these foods precisely because they are targeted for exclusion and even because they are more efficient means of taking in energy.
Repeated denial of energy and/or the repeated threat of denial of energy, makes your energy supply insecure. This can make your body favour the most efficient and effective means of taking in energy, sugar and fat for example.
What you are supposed to do instead is to reduce your hunger function, which will make you eat less. Awful abomination though it is, the experiment of weight diet gastrectomy demonstrates this. Not only does it show that, it shows that appetite, which is really what this is about, is also part of hunger function. Reduce it and you're likely to reduce your hunger for all foods including sweet/fatty ones.
It often leads to astonishing changes in the way things taste, making cravings for a rich slice of chocolate cake or a bag of White Castle hamburgers simply vanish...they were not particularly hungry afterward...their taste for food often changed.... “Are you sure they didn’t operate on my brain? Food does not call out to me anymore.”Another, who used to seek fatty and sugary foods, said, “I crave salads now.”That person who was asking if something had been done to their brain was so used to being told-as we all are- that eating is just a decision rooted in the mind. He couldn't relate the assault on his body with a change in what was supposed to be all in his head.
In reality hunger is an all body process that is collated in the brain and then responded to. Removing a major digestive organ curtails the body's ability to produce hunger at an efficient and normal level.
Hunger (and appetite) function can be adjusted without tearing people up. But for some reason, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists prefer to cut-em-up-rough. Or to seek drugs. Well, as long as people allow them to get away with this, they'll continue.
Wednesday, 17 October 2018
Research Is Direct Link to Getting Money for Nothing
"Research finds link between time online and obesity in children". How about research finding a link between how the body self-regulates our body mass and our conscious awareness? They both major in using the same system, the nervous system. That way we could pass on to our children could skills that could be used for all sorts of alterations to their own function.
Meaning they can spend time on-line according to their own interests and benefit rather than being subject to a shower of random dictates that do not add up to a coherent picture.
Do the people producing this "research" know finding out that doing A, B, C, D, X makes you, such and such % more likely to become fatsuity means precisely duck fall? That along with, doing A, B, C, D, Z, increases the risk of fatsuity or, people with fatsuits are more likely to not be able to um.........I forget?
In short, you are producing absolute garbage unless you are producing information about real psychological, biological functioning and pathways that actually lead to something tangible.
We know fatsuit research is a money pit right now, and that you get paid for producing any old irrelevant and useless shit. That doesn't mean you should though. You could, excuse personal ethical oversight, and dare one say it, exercise self control.
Jus' saying.
Meaning they can spend time on-line according to their own interests and benefit rather than being subject to a shower of random dictates that do not add up to a coherent picture.
Do the people producing this "research" know finding out that doing A, B, C, D, X makes you, such and such % more likely to become fatsuity means precisely duck fall? That along with, doing A, B, C, D, Z, increases the risk of fatsuity or, people with fatsuits are more likely to not be able to um.........I forget?
In short, you are producing absolute garbage unless you are producing information about real psychological, biological functioning and pathways that actually lead to something tangible.
We know fatsuit research is a money pit right now, and that you get paid for producing any old irrelevant and useless shit. That doesn't mean you should though. You could, excuse personal ethical oversight, and dare one say it, exercise self control.
Jus' saying.
Saturday, 22 September 2018
The Frame
Early on in my fatsphere adventure I asked, "What are the sides?"
By that I meant, if fat people are on one side and others on the other, what do those sides represent in terms of ideas?
To make it even easier, what sides were during our dieting decades? We wanted to be slim and others claimed that too. Usually that means we agree.
It's another odd feature of this weight fandango, agreement doesn't mean agreement, and disagreement doesn't mean disagreement. [Debate also doesn't mean debate, but that's another story].
John Hickner MD MSc, October last year.
Is obesity a disease?
Whether we agree or not, things stay the same as long as 'obesity' is the frame.
By that I meant, if fat people are on one side and others on the other, what do those sides represent in terms of ideas?
To make it even easier, what sides were during our dieting decades? We wanted to be slim and others claimed that too. Usually that means we agree.
It's another odd feature of this weight fandango, agreement doesn't mean agreement, and disagreement doesn't mean disagreement. [Debate also doesn't mean debate, but that's another story].
John Hickner MD MSc, October last year.
Is obesity a disease?
It depends on whom you ask. But if you ask me, obesity should not be labeled a disease.By "treating" he means telling people to diet/drug up/get mutilated. Either way, he agrees with fat activists, don't define weight as disease. "So what can we do?" he asks;
I understand the rationale for calling obesity a disease—it helps legitimize the time we spend treating obesity and aids in getting paid for that time.
We need to recognize our limited, but important, role and remain nonjudgmental with our overweight and obese patients when they are unsuccessful at losing weight. It is easy to play the blame game, even in subtle ways. Recognizing that obesity is more of a social issue than a personal behavioral issue is a great place to start. Asking patients what they want to do and helping them set goals and find the resources to reach their goals can be helpful. Celebrating even small decreases in weight or increases in physical activity is always good medicine. Remember that a 5% to 10% weight loss has medically beneficial effects, especially for patients with diabetes.Dude, that's what y'all want to get paid for!! And both 'overweight" and 'obese' are judgements.
In addition to recommendations (and referrals) to help patients reduce calories and increase exercise, we have other weight-loss tools to draw upon. Gastric bypass surgery is certainly effective—especially for obese patients with diabetes. And while medication is no replacement for proper diet and exercise, it is another option to consider.Ditto. D'oh!
..whether you consider obesity a disease, or not, we now have even more ways with which to combat it.No you don't. You have the same old shit as ever, based on the same failed premise.
Whether we agree or not, things stay the same as long as 'obesity' is the frame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)