The Obesity Paradox

Trigger Warning: For the prospect of sheer unmitigated boredom.

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

Bullet points for a cut out and keep style effect.

Body Mass/Weight/Volume

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

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

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

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

How to Adjust Body Mass/Weight/Volume Unsuccessfully 

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

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

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

• Insist your "excess" must be starved off. 

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

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

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

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

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

The (never)end.

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

Simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finesse Fail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time can deliver some finesse of its own.

*💩

Surrender Manqué

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Righty-o.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ceasefire On Your Phony War

"Britain is becoming a mascot for diabetes – it’s time to do something drastic about obesity". If Britain is becoming a mascot for stupid self-defeating behaviour-then wondering around all surprised after the fact, like a monkey who's lost its banana.

The war on obesity, which has not yet even been declared, will be won through a series of small victories and guerrilla skirmishes, just as it was against tobacco. 

How impressively butch. All reality will bow before you, no doubt. 

To your typical comparison of tobacco with fatsuity;


Both A and B, both the host and the 'disease' are is BMI 30+. As your hack-soul knows full well, there's no comparison between tobacco and the human body. It's about showing contempt.

Why that particular war metaphor though?

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

A top down abuse of power is now a revolutionary insurgency against the odds?😵

Irregular warfare
...defined in US joint doctrine as “A violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations.

💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

Even if this was the case, who has dictated things as they stand? As you can see in the diagram, your targets do not even appear in the term that you are using to attack them in your phony war! That obviously comes from the notion of a-slim person who has 'extra' that is with 'obesity' and is all about you.

You and your kind are in the driving seat. 

When a subject is not a study of you, negates everything you think, feel. say and do, when it doesn't know let alone respond to your needs, when it blocks even the most minor possibility of arming you with anything that will give you power or autonomy over your own body-It is not about you. It's about those writing the script.

 People like this, write the script, regardless of reality. When it comes to other people, they feel that entitled.

What folk like this want to continue with the current order where every BMI 30+ is a criminal who owes a debt to society that must be paid. That payment is a life sentence of futile diet 'n' exercise, aka starvation and hard labour. We all know, including op-ed, that this has failed, but it doesn't matter, it's about punishment above all else.

They're getting exactly what they want.

This fake war against civilians by the influential from elite classes, has been on for at least 40 years in its most recent incarnation. It never gets beyond inducing weight reduction using calorie restriction is defeated by the body's own self-regulation, because of the monstrous self-indulgence of the script writers. And their rejection of SCIENCE, in favour of turning "health" into a criminal justice model.

This is way worse than any climate change denial. Their failure and lies can be seen at all times. Climate change is not nearly so evident. 

The first line of this pile of tripe is, "You are what you eat, so the saying goes.". I'll see that twaddle and raise them an axiom, if the hypothesis doesn't match reality, change the hypothesis.

Don't change, nay mutilate bodies, change your approach, work with and use the body's own abilities. A proper physiologically honest grasp of how the body regulates itself, and means of resetting how much body mass the body sustains, is required in place of insisting people starve themselves.

How is it possible to hate science this much? Even right-wing christian conservatives don't feel this aversion. On the contrary, they've shown real respect for science in their some of their misguided attempts to reframe their holy books as filled with science. 

It's people like this who are truly anti-science. Anti-vaxxers aren't even on the same page of mess as them.

I'll put it to them in simple terms.

Either continue to do your punishment, or allow the science to be done-stop blocking it.

But you cannot turn your punishment into efficacy, no matter how much you mutilate and poison organs. And your increasingly deranged efforts to have your cake and eat it too will just cause massive penalties to be paid, and not by you, as usual.

Indivisible

The current school of thought droning on about how people have never been so divided tend not to bother with no disagreement but one or other parties insist there is/are.

Ad hominem-literally, to the man or person.

Everybody signed on to slim down or become slimmer under their own steam. Nobody disagreed. The disagreement came when the results of a particularly singular method were deemed biologically (and politically) incorrect.

 This is the major sticking point, not simply quarrelling with biology, but blocking the proper use of biological function.

Currently George Monbiot "We’re in a new age of obesity. How did it happen? You’d be surprised" et al are saying;

.......food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.

Meaning, we have the capacity to strengthen our natural appetite control mechanisms, build up our defences against them being breached, can use psychology to trick ourselves into eating less than we need, and to use the latest neuroscience findings to triumph in leaving our resistance untroubled.

By reversing the effects purportedly achieved by Industrial Food.

The great thing about using the same mechanics to reverse his assertions is this will either uphold them or not. Which is science's usual starting point. Be sure and mention this to your medic or otherwise healthcare professional, sundry fat phobes and such.

Metabolism can be manipulated using non-drug means and Industrial Food knows all about it, according to George Monbiot. Call him.

He also mentions using "subliminal scents" to alter metabolic settings. I myself have said use of light (and probably darkness, separately and in concert) should be tried as a means to alter metabolic function via the eyes, brain and ergo neuro-endocrine glands.

Starvation and drugs are not simply too crude to do this in the right way, they are irrelevant and they poison the body as collateral damage. Plus surgery, is just violent assault. 

Roxane Gay recently reminded us of how far back this rage against the body goes with the case of Sancho I (935-966),

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

Starvation, forced labour and drugs and even some mutilation, albeit reversible, unlike the kind currently being promoted by the likes of Monbiot.

Why do 'obesity' peddlers insist on framing this as a whodunnit? How about they try whogivesafuq?

I saw a photo of myself only a few weeks ago, as a preteen already diet veteran. You would have had trouble picking me out of the photo, on the grounds of body mass. I don't know why slim people never listen to what they project onto us, as if this by definition excludes them, "Normalisation of Plus Size etc.,". If not being able to notice size fattened, Monbiot himself would be a target of his own cultism.

And if dieting had worked, I would never have been one myself. That's how it happened George. I feel like Kano, I lived it.

Cults tend to degenerate into doom laden paranoia. Self correction comes hard to them. Their articles of faith do not engage critical faculties. Round and round and round circling the same themes, tightening all the time, until there's a massive shoot out with the FBI or some such.

Sorry old bean, some of us got off that merry-go-round a long time ago.

No Slimming for Channel Four

If I was bending over backwards, I'd say Channel 4's a mixed bag when it comes to representing the fatz. It commissioned the TV version of "My Mad Fat Diary", which gave us much joy. It has also featured another series with a lead that acts like a human being and not a saddo obot. I typed in Channel 4, female, northern, detective and it came up! "No Offence". I saw bits of it and it thought it seemed well made and had an interesting antagonist, it got away from me.

The other side of this however is far bigger. That's the side that made TV fatsploitation classic Supersize/Superskinny. It has continued with this level of class, upping the ante being a typical achingly bourgeois ghetto for scienterrific fat phobia [you're fooling no-one C4]. Usually featuring, the-you are totes unaware of how much you are pushing into your face-type premise. Specialising in humiliations of the gotcha kind- where people are set up with secret cameras, caught eating pies/cake etc., to then be lectured with the expected pompous yet insipid twit-toned nutritionista.

Every airhead diet trend is taken seriously, all dieting is the same Mao suit, no matter the fabric or colour.

So it was a complete surprise to hear this channel criticise one of their stalwart presenters- Jamie "Please can we not have any more" Oliver. "Channel 4 tells Jamie Oliver he's wrong on junk food ad ban campaign". Thunderstruck, I did the mental equivalent of falling over my feet desperate to find out what their objection could possibly be.

I couldn't even speculate, I was taken aback by their rationale. Money. Not that they said this outright from the get-go;

Channel 4 bosses have said Jamie Oliver’s campaign for a ban on airing junk food adverts before 9pm is wrong, arguing that it is anachronistic because children rarely watch live television.

Megalmao.

......Channel 4 said any such ban could have a substantial impact on its revenue and prevent it from funding programmes about healthy living.

Arrrhahaha..further, snorts, guffaws etc.,

They're not bothered about participating in the relentless dehumanisation and exploitation of people in the name of reducing the size of their bottoms. 

When it comes however to trimming their fat bottom line, they come over all fat positive max, butt only because it means they'll have less money available to produce more useless pseudo science fuelled crap. 

Isn't that well meaning of them?

This is the age we live in my friends. Real maltreatment is not being exhorted to starve on the demand of others neurosis, but the prospect of corporate loss of funds.

Call the UN.

To be candid though, this could pose a dilemma.

Oppose Jamie Oliver or support him and possibly reduce C4's budget for fat hating propaganda.  Tough choice.

Never did I think anything could even for a moment make me reconsider objecting to the Oliver that wants to give less rather than ask for more.

How Science Does and Doesn't Go

Here's an example of what you are missing.

"Potential new cure found for baldness" everything is clear in 6 words. The issue: baldness, the aim: to resolve it. Use of the term 'cure' is quaint, from a time when the desire for solutions was evident. It also tells us that anything remotely undesirable easily lends itself toward pathologisation and the language of disease as metaphor.

Along with issue and aim is the need for a target, in this case it happens to be a compound that acts as a brake on hair growth. Amusing given the amount of times I have said usually scientific protocol is to look to stabilise a condition or state-to stop it increasing/moving on/continuing, at the same time as seeking a reverse gear.

Tackling baldness is presented as being about manipulating the action of cells, in an understandable way. It's clear that scientists are doing this for lay people. There's no resentment on the part of the professionals, who do not feel they're being overburdened or taxed by being expected to want to practise what they trained for-in addition to freely choosing what field they wish to engage in. Of their own volition.

All despite the utter triviality of baldness. There's no sense that this is an unworthy investment of scientific resources. Doctors are involved, supporting in this case leading research.

Current remedies, their efficacy and lack of it are accurately rendered, in no sense is a failure of these remedies the failure of anything but those remedies. Reactions to baldness are also allowed to vary. It is made clear some 'suffer', there's a distinct sense that you don't have to.

It isn't required and you are not accused of anything, if you do not by your own initiative choose to suffer from baldness.

Overall the tone is cool, detached and interested in its subject. Shaped by the professionals involved.

Looking at a sample of the most recent article on weight, "Study casts doubt on 'healthy obesity'", it's easy to see it has no real sense of its issue, no desire to resolve, and clearly it is on the attack. It is unfocused, goes nowhere, is highly personalised and seeks only to create anxiety and to demoralise its targets. Not the functioning of the body and its cells, but people.

There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to 'obesity'. The construct itself is the stigma and its operatives are the stigmatisers.

The public go along with this, including fat people, who also allow themselves to be trapped inside its terms.

Absolute Neurosis

"A lesson from the biggest losers: Exercise keeps the weight off" refers to that study of former biggest loser contestants.

It claims the key to staving off the rebound part of any calorie restriction induced weight loss cycle [the calorie-weight deficit/restoration of calorie-weight deficit is all ONE cycle] is exercise.

"Hope"

I wish the NYTimes would make room for other types of articles on health, providing us with indepth insight into various genetic illnesses, diseases, and other conditions. These constant articles about studies of how to lose weight and keep it off are tiresome. Diet and exercise works, don't we know that by now? Let's move on.

Hope and I do not agree on the viability of cal res, but we both agree it's time to move on with endless portentous repetition of nothing. It's the professionals who don't want to. They are the ones wanting to keep going round and round in their circles as long as they can, postponing that inevitable moment when science must stop being pseud.

On average, those who managed to maintain a significant weight loss had 80 minutes a day of moderate activity, like walking, or 35 minutes a day of vigorous exercise, like running.

Compare this with stopping smoking. This is of course, after spending the weight. This is a life sentence of the wrong means to achieve ends.

On average is not for everybody though,

For the four years after the show, he exercised more than two and a half hours a day and gained back just 40 pounds.Then the injuries began, forcing him to cut back his workouts to one and a half hours a day. His weight crept up to 235 pounds.

The next year, “my body just started breaking down,” he said. “I had a foot injury, a wrist injury. I couldn’t keep it up.” And he was exhausted.

More than two [one!] and a half hours a day to gain "only" 40 lbs, not to be slim let alone thin.

Physically breaking down under the strain of exercise purging, with injury piling upon injury to the point where you have to stop - usually comes towards the hospitalisation end of a thin/slim person's anorexia nightmare.

It's also calls to mind neurological weight loss diet burnout, where your nervous system is unable to tolerate the provocation of restriction and you just can't.  I say that not to be fancy, but because you want to keep dieting, but something has changed, your body blocks you, it's a rather eerie discovery.

Yet this too is perceived as failure of the person, not the method,

It’s a difficult task for virtually anyone, Dr. Kerns said: “The amount of time and dedication it takes to manage one’s food intake and prioritize exercise every day can be an untenable burden for many people.” “It’s totally unfair to judge those who can’t do it,” she added.

Doesn't multiple injuries or nervous system exhaustion with fighting off restriction show dedication? How can you get any more dedicated that actually exhausting your body's ability to continue with what you are doing?

Cahill could do it. He wasn't a can't do it! At the very least should be where even the most raving calorie restrictionists draw the line. It should be "Okay, you all have to train like athletes and starve like anorexics, until your body breaks down, then you must stop."

But no, apparently, you still haven't done anything. It is an extreme version of how the ideology in people's minds erases recognise fat people's efforts.

As has been pointed out, these "biggest losers" are the success stories. They are outliers in success. Biggest loser type dieters are like anorexics without the madness, their behaviour, not anorexics, is driven by pure will.

Neither are in control.

Nor is dieting hard its easy, it's the body blocking its action that gives it rigour, but that wasn't in the calculation. Ci/co cannot adjust to this.

What happened to Danny Cahill is what your defences are blocking, potential damage and injury. This erasure of fat people's efforts is a sign of deep neurosis. These people are hallucinating an absence, whilst looking directly at what is present.

I'll re-emphasise, it is normal for most of us to display signs that could be seen as or actually form part of a psychiatric diagnosis. Unless that's so pronounced as to pull other things out of alignment [or the reverse], the overall pattern is what makes up genuine diagnosis.

This should be enough of a warning sign though, even addicts going into rehab and coming out addicts will not be told-you didn't go there. Whether the failure is seen as one of those things or something the person did wrong, their presence is recognised.

Here's is a mindset which perceives doing purely on outcome. Do nothing + the desired outcome = activity, success. Do everything + undesired outcome = inaction, failure.

Calorie restriction has always been unlimited in this way, sure evidence of its inherent quackery. Every function has limits. Only in fiction are there no limits. In reality, not recognising any limits just puts pressure on your mind to erase the limits that will naturally manifest.

Dieting and exercise feel bad not because they are hard-they aren't-it's because they are bad. 

All this is also evidence of a profound failure of us fat people. Our refusal to set limits ourselves, on what we should expect to do is perhaps most shocking of all. What exactly is motivating us to allow such liberties to be taken with us? Why do we allow people to impose unending, unendurable labour?

Slim people, fat phobes maybe sinking under the weight [yes] of their own neuroses, but it is we that seem entranced by this. It is we that appear to be willingly sleepwalking to our own destruction.

Social Justice Mutilation

From the horse's mouth in the form of a commercial published under "opinion","Obese people deserve surgical treatment, too" is written by a bariatric surgeon. He means folks have earned gastric strangulation/ amputation.

Well, with friends like these and all that.

His blunt sales pitch explains that insufficient suckers are putting money into his pocket for him to mess up and remove their healthy organs.

It is, as one surgeon puts it, “a mutilating operation” in which a person’s innards are rearranged with the aim of reducing eating.

Actually, rearranged and reduced through damage. People don't care too much about health do they? This fella's riding in on the current bariatric surgery is social justic wave, but is hardly persuasive;

Whenever possible, prevention is obviously better than cure. But this is no longer an option for people who have missed the boat of prevention and have gone on to develop severe, complex obesity with conditions such as diabetes.

This is such a clear reference to the whole 'obesity' sham that it is positively triumphalist. There's one "boat" to "prevent" weight, to prevent it, to reverse it and that's calorie restriction. You can't miss it, because everyone's being forced into it, including slimz, by the 'obesity' industry of which he's a part. 

As a reminder of what calorie restriction induced weight loss is all about. That's; anorexia, bulimia and exercise purging.

Anorexia nervosa is a serious mental health condition. It's an eating disorder where a person keeps their body weight as low as possible. People with anorexia usually do this by restricting the amount of food they eat, making themselves vomit, and exercising excessively.

What does seeking to impersonate this, using the same techniques say about your mental health? Luckily for, humankind, developing anorexia nervosa is largely, not a choice.

As for bulimia, if you can't stick your finger down your throat, help is now available,. If you want "support" for your anorexia, this guy can remove your stomach.

There could be a genuine question mark over why less of these operations are done in the UK, though it's likely to be the cost of them, and the costs of clearing up the damage they intend to do, remember smokers are vilified for increasing the possibility of damaging their organs, these people cut out healthy tissue.

France, Belgium and Sweden will have to pay out more when that particular dirt hits the fan. Ironically, they did more good, in not allowing industrial food to requisition their food environment, but equally, they're more active in mutilating their citizens.

The UK, couldn't be arsed to follow the logic of its own demands, and equally, seems to follow the same path with butchery.

Outlaw Bodies

A break in normal transmission for some click bait. "Sports Illustrated: Here's why fat size 20-somethings don't belong on the runway". I'm not going to waste much time on this nonsense so I'll let this airhead tell you in her own words;

I’VE got a message to people who agree with Sports Illustrated’s move to parade “curvier” women on the runway: It’s irresponsible.

Yahwn, whatever, that link is paywalled so here's a quote from the editor of SI, MJ Day speaking on teevee;

“We’ve made a very positive statement that beauty is not one size fits all and now we’re carrying through with that in our new line,” Ms Day said on air.  “It’s just further confirmation that this is what people want to see and this is what we should be doing. “This is what our responsibility should be, you know, as people in the media we shouldn’t create this little box in what’s acceptable and what’s considered beautiful. “As a woman, yes I hope this continues.”

Mz Concern-Troll's not having that oh no because social exclusion, that great health technique, must be the only aim,

.....putting very overweight people on the catwalk feels more like giving in...

Feels like giving in to what?

...the message seems to be, don’t bother to strive to lose weight and improve your health and wellbeing.

You really give an earthly fig about that don't you? Are you acquainted with the latest developments in 'obesity'? What are they pray tell? What exactly is this "help" you are so fond of talking about?  Could it be the same old useless failed shit of the last 40 years? I think it could which would be why you're calling it "help".

The coup de foudre/ placeholder for where an argument should be is also relayed by head doc of the Australian Medical Association, lols;

“There is a difference between being confident in who you are and promoting a healthy weight message,” he told Sydney’s Daily Telegraph. “It’s a difficult message but just like we don’t use cigarettes to promote products I don’t think we should have unhealthy weights promoting products.”

Um hum, "we" do not use cigarettes to promote products and "we" should not have unhealthy weights promoting products.

Remember when we still pretended all docs where intelligent? Here's Mz Thing's version;

Parading and glorifying size 20-somethings on any runway promotes an underlying and irresponsible message that doing nothing about your weight is OK.

You may recognise this from theocracies requiring women to wear sacks whenever they're allowed to leave their homes-if they're allowed to leave without permission-'cos the mere sight of women's bodies provokes/promotes bad things to occur.

This version gained traction when slim women wanting to slim down to size thin, couldn't because dieting=starvation=hell, turned on the bodies they'd aspired to become-how often does previous admiration flip to rage?

They pointed to thin women/ their bodies as provoking their self imposed starvation and weight envy. It was jealousy. If they couldn't be thin why should thin women be allowed to just blithely go about their business, oblivious to the pain their bodies caused? Why shouldn't they feel some (of that) angst? No reminder of what they'd wanted so bad to be but couldn't manage.

That this line has retain the remotest kudos is tribute to the extent to which some can be taken seriously whilst issuing forth utter bunk.   

Unsurprisingly, Mz Derivative thinks she can rescue this stale effect by shivving other women;

My argument here cuts both ways. If the fashion industry decides to stop using models who appear to have starved themselves to skin and bones — as they should — they shouldn’t then choose to promote an equally unhealthy body shape.

You want to extend your offences and that makes it right? What's the cognitive fallacy for this called?

If a woman is actually starving herself, i.e. she is anorexic etc., she should have access to techniques that enable her to restore herself to proper balance, not to be treated like a miscreant, what's the point in that?

No-one, model or otherwise should have to starve themselves thinner. If there was proper means of altering weight/metabolism, this wouldn't be an issue, but there isn't, ergo if the fashion industry insist on thinness, they should accept they cannot have any more thinness than is comfortable and natural for any particular girl [some of them are] or woman.

Over and above that, I have zero time for banning thin or any other size people from appearing in the media. The only way we can have nice things is if the care of a person's body lies mainly within themselves and proper viable, genuinely effective methods of management and care.

You cannot act like the patriarchy that says women are assaulted because the very sight of them provokes other people to act in certain untoward ways. I get that some people have or have had anorexia and they can find the sight of thin bodies triggering, but reversal of such feelings shouldn't be much more than as feeling them.

And anyway, as people like the AMA guy are busily promoting proto- anorexia, we need more representation of anorexics talking in forensic detail if necessary-about how to attain this great achievement of modern times so those of us who are falling down can have access to this "help". You can't have it bothwise 'obesity' cultists!

The problem is not representation of thin or other bodies, it's that our regulation of various aspects of metabolic function is being left in the hands of fanatics who think everything is controlled through manipulating diet. They too wish to impose their medievalist fauxmorality on everybody else.

This columnist drones on about how much she is suffering due to not be able to indulge her self denuding sub-pieties now people aren't buying them as concern,

I’m guilty of turning a blind eye when a friends says, “I’m so fat”. I just stand there denying that they are but maybe a bit of truth can lead some people on the right track of weight loss. Too many people are risking their lives with weight-related problems. But if you believe everyone deserves the best possible chance at a long and healthy life surely it’s not OK.

Oh yes, not being able to issue forth your ignorant no-account platitudes really is standing in the way of any fat person's life, you are that special. If your essence could be bottled, you'd be a medicinal panacea. There is no blind anything, there is nothing we don't already know of and it hasn't worked for the last 40 years.

"Risk" lies in allowing this to continue, 

Parading and glorifying size 20-somethings on any runway promotes an underlying and irresponsible message that doing nothing about your weight is OK.

What the 'obesity' crusade promotes is drug addiction and mutilation, plus more derangement of metabolic function. That is why people are extricating themselves from it.

The more people call the last 40 years of effort "doing nothing," the more they draw attention to just how keen they are to keep people where they are now. 

The real impulse is making people feel like they are not in charge of themselves and that they should bow down to the whims of whomever is wielding the 'obesity' stick. That would be the height of "irresponsible" if you claim to believe people will die 8 years before others if they do not do what "help" has failed to do.

If you've read thus far, think of how far removed you've come from being cowed by these sentiments. There's further to go, but recognise you will have to keep pushing with positive action or else you will be dealt whatever people like this want.

No-one in their right mind wants that.

Children Seen as the Weakest Link

So the burgeoning 'obesity' industry continues to target the softer route of using children to advance its increasingly profit-dredging soulless cult,

These types of interventions were often delivered by multidisciplinary teams, including pediatricians, exercise physiologists or physical therapists, dietitians or diet assistants, psychologists or social workers, or other behavioral specialists.

I'll bet, a veritable bonanza for middle/upper class professionals. Well, we owe them a living don't we? And so do children, donating their minds and bodies for the effort.

Ob industrialists are wont to tell us of the purported percentage increase in this or that version of their stupid term 'obesity' so they shouldn't be shy about the percentage increase in the diversion of funds into this money-for-nothing slush pile. I'll bet its epitastic.

In order to collar more unwilling vics, the industry wishes to "screen" children from ages 6 years upwards to see how many it can requisition for what it dubs, "Comprehensive, intensive, behavioural interventions".

Don't all rush at once.

Basically it's,

...individual sessions (both family and group); provided information about healthy eating, safe exercising, and reading food labels; encouraged the use of stimulus control (eg, limiting access to tempting foods and limiting screen time), goal setting, self-monitoring, contingent rewards, and problem solving; and included supervised physical activity sessions.

"Reading food labels" demands a serious education. And stimulus control is not "limiting access" to anything, it's altering your ability to switch off or curtail your response to stimuli. That suggestion is about removing the stimulus, without addressing the potential for response. You'd rather get rid of say a phobia that just remove or avoid the trigger/stimulus.

This is all too familiar, like 'obesity' cults favourite attack the response to hunger, but not the hunger itself.

The reason they give for insisting on a minimum of at least 26 + billable hours is their "evidence" [lols] shows any less is even more useless than the minimal effects they have the effrontery to claim make this all worthwhile.

The proper response to this would be come up with stuff that actually works, but if they were interested in that, they wouldn't be in this.

That's not all though, the real jam in the doughnut is turning your kid on to drug abuse or "phramacotherapy" as they prefer. Clearly shy of their own actions. The prospect of targeting ethnic minority children is something folks need to pay attention too.

Pass that on to the unsuspecting.

I don't know about you but six years old was around the time I was beginning to become aware of eating and weight. The notion of me being put on drugs at that age is staggering to me. There are two aspects to falling prey to drug abuse, now or in the future. One is susceptibility the other is the worship of pills as something to take as some kind of holy sacrament regardless.

Drugs are introduced in any instance possible just for the sake of it.

Drugs impose strain on the liver. Their wild mis-use sets people's minds to that direction and is a long-term risk factor for organ damage. 'Obesity' wallahs are fond of invoking 'addiction', they seem desperate to make manifest their favoured legends about fat people-as they always do.

Weight is an issue of anatomical function, neural and endocrinal. The real answers lie in altering metabolic processes through pathways we can create/connect/exploit through conscious access. The focus is on physiology not 'behaviour', character or intangibles.

This is an idea that is still in advance of our current expectations.

So alternatives?

Well, teaching children to meditate is a good idea, for their general neural and physical health. Teach them to clear their minds of all thought, pick a spot on the wall/ceiling and focus on it. The key is to return attention to that spot when it drifts, without force or frustration. A couple of minutes a day to start off with is fine-if they are jittery.

Up to 20 minutes is fine. Meditation is not a treatment by the way, its a practice that tends to help support health, its a form of mental hygiene.

Gaining control of your mind is good for resisting definitions others may seek to impose for their own gain. It also can help with lifting and resisting excessive demands on your child's energy, something that can distort hunger, especially at times of hormonal flux.

Do not under any circumstances identify your child as 'obese' or 'with obese'. Your child is always a child. A little human person, never, ever, ever a disease or "person with their own body mass." If you feel up to it, make that clear to any professionals that you do not wish to support or be involved in such terms or pathologising your child in any way- whether you use their help or not. 

When it comes to hunger teach children to respect theirs by not forcing them to override or cheat theirs. Encourage them to try various things in a spirit of adventure, but don't bribe or make them eat things they really don't want to. If its about things like veg, make them tastier.

Keep a relaxed and positive attitude around eating and food. Explain that it supports the greatness that is them *grin*. You don't have to be a godbotherer to say some form of grace-expressing gratitude for your food before you eat it. And do not get them involved in this good/bad food or talk about food as 'junk' or 'shit'. Some food is fun, silly food for snacks other food is more nourishing sustaining food.

Still other food is about celebrating occasions or seasons. 

Explain to them in terms of useful, appropriate times to eat this or that kind of food. Tell them about where food comes from, about things growing from the earth, point to plants you see around, even weeds in the pavement/sidewalk, to help explain.

Talk about how food gets turned into the state you buy it in. 

Check out people like Ellen Satter, food justice folks who work with children and urban (and rural) gardening. Most of the good ones don't harp on 'obesity' its irrelevant to people who care about real things. Put food into context, its ultimately just food, fuel, it's not physiology. It's certainly nothing to fear. Altering the body shouldn't depend on it.

If a child genuinely seems to have excessive hunger-check by observing them and gently questioning how their hunger feels before, during and after eating. How do they feel about being and not being hungry?

Explain that some people's hunger function is more excitable than others, and that you will work together to help their body bring it down to a proper rhythm. 

Don't label them 'eating disordered' or pathologise them or anything like that. Talk about their fears and reassure them that you support them in finding ways to check it. Dispel anxiety, don't create it.

Teach them to calm themselves before, during and after they eat-on top of in general, even if its just something like counting down from 10-1.

Deal with other anxieties or worries they may have about themselves and life in general help them achieve a better state overall.

In case it needs saying, don't allow your child to be turned into a little pill popper on the orders of those who are clearly no longer in charge of themselves on this issue. Be prepared to be the voice of reason, defending your child against fanaticism.

I genuinely cannot see how they will get away with this sort of quackery without being sued at some point, but that's a risk factor they need to consider. 

Remember, all any of us signed on for was to become slim nothing more and, many fat adults are ex-childhood 'obesity' cases. It didn't work then and it won't now. 

"Weight as Disease" = Munchausen's-by-Proxy

"Accepting the concept that obesity is a chronic disease process is important for several reasons,"

Oh what a tangled web is being woven.

There's far more to being asked to swallow a false "concept" than meets the eye [is that noshing on ya fees?] You are being asked to pretend you are a disease/sick when you aren't either. How could you even be the former, you might ask? May I remind you of "food/eating addiction".

A refresher- the American Medical Association's attempted declaration;

That our AMA: (1) recognize obesity and overweight as a chronic medical condition (de facto disease state) and urgent public health problem

It should be said that even if the latter point were true, it would make no odds. A disease is a disease whether it's a purported "public health crisis" or whether it's affected 5 people in the history of record.

Terms, medical ones certainly do not exist for their potential to warp minds and manipulate emo's. Pretending to be sick/unwell/unhealthy when you aren't any of those things is not only a lie, it's a diagnosable condition. It's called Munchausen's Syndrome, more recently named factitious as in presenting fiction as fact.

Factitious disorders are conditions in which a person deliberately and consciously acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she is not really sick.

This is of course what the AMA is in effect demanding of every person above a BMI of 30 actually 25 as it includes the term "overweight". They never thought of this, there's little to no sense of consequence when entering this particular playpen.

The interesting rub here is that it is in a sense 'obesity' crusaders, the AMA included, who have the Munchausen's, what they're seeking to do is to force people under their influence and charge to act this out. That puts them under the influence of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a mental health problem in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care, such as a child, an elderly adult, or a person who has a disability. Because vulnerable people are the victims, MSBP is a form of child abuse or elder abuse.  

Holy Farka Touré. How much does that not sound like this imposition? That's it in a nutshell! Mental health problem eh? Ha, ha, they said it!

Difference is instead of developing MS personal inclination or neurosis, you're having it forced on you, which is even more peculiar. MSBP has always been a tad controversial. The typical scenario-though this makes me think that's a stereotype-is a mother pretending their child is sick by manipulating them physically or injuring them to produce what could be deemed symptoms.

In that case it seems to be the extension of the womb, lack of separation between mother and child, whose being deemed an object that belongs to her, even still a part of her. In the case of 'obese' because that's wholly a creation of slimz, it's as if we are in their heads as a product of their imagination.

I must admit, on first hearing, I dismissed it on sight as a form of abuse given a fancy name. I can't remember when I caught on, though I can say the crusade brought it to mind. The enigma has always been motive. The motive for MS has been to draw the kind of sympathy and attention we associate with being unwell, but what's gained by using a proxy as a vehicle for fake illness?

Factitious disease is defined as the intentional production (or feigning) of disease in oneself to relieve emotional distress by assuming the role of a sick person.

Which is exactly the payoff that's being sold to BMI 25+. 

"First, it removes the feeling that patients alone are responsible for their excess weight.

That's what they've got from years of the fatsphere, desperation to evade responsibility, despite spending a lifetime going out of our way to accept it fully in the most painful and ego-immolating ways.

They cannot see further than what they want. See all the insistence that doctors are not at the head of promoting this mess along with "obesity researchers". They are just affected by society's bias, rather than their professional standing helped legitimise and increase the state of rage that is the norm. Without the medical profession 'obesity' would be the joke it is.

I can say this confidently having predicted they'd weasel out of their responsibility for this ordure. Once the stank gas is loose, they claim only to have smelt it not to have dealt it.  

So in addition to being asked to adopt anorexia, exercise bulimia, body integrity identity disorder we are being asked to pretend to be sick, 'cos people will sympathise with us.

Trashing the worthless 'obesity' construct and getting back to concentrating on a proper science of metabolic function would do that far more completely. 

Not that I believe people will sympathise with fat people. You cannot feel for an object. Anyway, fat people don't need sympathy, they need people to stop being raving arseholes.

Subtle difference.

Now you may doubt this sort of diagnosis. I think that's a fair and valid instinct. Amateur diagnosis is almost invariably a bad idea. In this though, you have to recognise an unprecedented uniqueness.

You've got a group of people who have little real interest in their already contrived subject, who have other agendas, who refuse to ground it in the science of physiology and are openly disinterested in resolution. Instead they impose their peculiarly alien subjectivity on those who have no real desire for it.

Ergo, that's all that's on show, virtually all the time. 

The constant airing of their psychological hang ups without proper science and progress to distract from that ensures glimpses are hardly fleeting.

The refusal not simply to do the science, but also to completely impose whatever's knocking around in their heads on others, also means those 'others' have the right to say, this is what you are telling me about yourself. This is why you are wrong, this is why people change course when something doesn't work. Not doing so ends up with this sort of thing. The thing that might moderate that being absent, personal cost.

That's using proxies for you.

Dead Dogma?

Well, well, well. Could we be witnessing the spread of terminal boredom with the useless, deranged and costly 'obesity' cult? Its stupidity, its sinister, psychopathic nature, dehumanises and objectifies. It has degraded us all in some way or other. 

And the interminable nonversations about food. How many times, the person who's lost 5 stone 'cos they've gone on a diet/changed their so called lifestyle, clouds in the heavens, WTHGAD? Or is it just part of the 'obesity' industry's attempt to transfer healthcare funds to its own accounts, blocked its own rank hate campaign?

[I always wondered how they'd get around that].

Matt Ridley who describes himself as; "Author, rational optimist, Times columnist, Wall Street Journal contributor, Tory peer, Northumbrian. Keen on science, scepticism, genes, ideas having sex."

M'kay;

"Obesity dogma has done us a fat lot of good"

Some put on weight more easily than others and there is no point in being proscriptive until scientists are certain why

That last bit nearly sums things up. Scientists need to find out how to use the anatomy that's already regulating the body's cells and learn how to alter that slightly in the main. We are not talking about disease or pathology, we are talking about reinforcement of regulation.

We've been here many times before and Ridley has noticed the 'obesity' consistently fails on its own terms-blaming it on its quarry, so that it can keep failing and blaming it on its quarry.....

You'd think that would have been super obvious. But when we expect to produce truth-they volunteer- producing distortions and blatant fibs, with the collusion of willing pitchforking weight vigilantes, it's surprising what liberties can be taken.

At the weekend Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum claimed implausibly that obesity now costs the state £24 billion a year. The Institute of Economic Affairs puts the cost at less than £2.5 billion, and argues that “while claims of a crippling cost are a good way to get media attention . . . they irresponsibly incite resentment of a vulnerable group”.

"Implausibly" understatement of the year.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a free market think tank.  Even the political corner that generated established and promoted a lot of this rubbish is offering sceptical analysis off it and using language like "vulnerable group". 

How long will people tolerate these pompous bores and their joy stealing, freedom negating activities.

And note how they know full well that it is the 'obesity' industry generating this ugliness, aiming it directly the type of people who post violent pornographic images of women being tortured, in order to try and drive women off social media. 

But some fat activists are still tippy-toeing around this, parroting nonsense about how "obesity is complex", [unless complex now means a stupid time sucking waste] aping 'obesity' wranglers divide and conquer blaming of the [slim] public. Like they whispered in their ear and told them we the [fat] public are to blame.

I detest people who parrot ob trope, tripe, however, there's no question that they get permission, encouragement and support in the form of such as the so called study of no such thing as people who actually exist of last week. Followed by the offer of some more crazy shit they can stick into you.

This stuff is created for everybody, but especially trolls, haters and bitter psychologically damaged whack jobs prepared to do their dirty work of bullying people into feeling as bad as possible. And they duly oblige, behaving as if they've had a work promotion.

I remember years ago suggesting all the ugliness posted on spaces occupied by fat people on social media should be directly e-mailed to "obesity researchers" producing this ugly hateful crap, just to give them some accountability for their actions. 

I've never sent a death threat to anyone in my life but I'd be happy to send them the death threats fat people on-line get from these cretins, preferably linking to the trash references scattered amid their poisoned outpourings. Asking stuff like; "Is this incentivising enough do you think?"

Advising, hectoring and bribing people to eat less and exercise more appears to be ineffective. We have just about tested that idea to destruction. It isn’t working, and it probably will only work if it becomes fully totalitarian, with police raids on home kitchens to seek out and destroy secret stashes of biscuits.

And this might be a problem for 'obesity' wallahs, they effectively require the pursuit of inefficient calorie intake and upping energy expenditure to become the defining principle of society as well as fat people's lives. Without bothering with any open discussion of whether that should be a thing. So do they take for granted the sport of loathing fatz is an inexhaustible well.

Perhaps not?!

The other day, I saw an article on pregnancy, it totally grasped how so called advice has become a tightening noose around pregnant women's necks. With 'obesity' it has gone far further consent is not a thing. We are not expected to have any opinions feelings or views other than what we are told to by ignorant idiots who-to add insult to injury-have little imagination.

What should a government do when there’s great uncertainty about both causes and the right course of action? Experiment, of course. 

If he stopped there, he'd be bang on so I did that for him. A proper sustained science of metabolic function, concentrating on the anatomy concerned is what's missing from the picture. The 'obesity' construct needs to enter  the dustbin of history- NOW.

Government should gather together a specialist team contain only those that can think well and have zero committment to shoring up 'obesity' and its cult.  Give them a year or two to find out how metabolic function works.

I'm sure knowledge of that would "motivate" those straining every pore  to avoid finding out anything useful.

'Obesity' is a Myth

"Healthy obesity is a myth suggests study". The 'obesity' is a myth so the opening statement is dead on impact. The intention behind forcing weight into "overweight"/ 'obese' is part of an overall drive into pathologising human function and outcomes in this case and size. In contrast to putting a false halo over a lesser size.

"Healthy" is not an emphatic tense. Outside of actual disease or sickness it doesn't fit an either/or categorisation. If one is well, health is by degree. The point about increased risk, real or imagined, is that is not a polar situation. Remember risk is not prognosis, whether heightened or otherwise and "obesity risk" bears hypothetical association as part of its equation.

It is also said to be the case that those who manage to reduce their weight using starvation still remain at heightened risk, raising again questions of direction of causality-to pander to this bankrupt framing.

As for the subsection "metabolically un/healthy". There is some kind of cross over between metabolic activity deemed 'unhealthy' for the purposes of fat/ter people and energy conservation. Fitness is not health, you can be healthy-free from disease- and unfit, you can be unhealthy-i.e. terminally ill-and be fit, as a woman who ran numerous marathons for charity whilst being terminally ill. Her weight would have been deemed "healthy".

Even if it is true that merely being fat/ter raises worsens outcomes in the long run, that just increases the urgency of being able to manipulate metabolic function in the right way. Something the 'obesity' exists to block.

Instead we have;

“The priority of health professionals should be to promote and facilitate weight loss among obese persons, regardless of the presence or absence of metabolic abnormalities.”

"Promote" starvation, which just so happens to be metabolically deranging in every way stated under "metabolic ill health" as well as not fit for the purpose of [non-pathological] weight alteration and regulation. It can't be a co-incidence that these folks long for people to think of themselves as unhealthy and insist we do what has failed and actually makes us less healthy, metabolically and otherwise. 

Metabolic-Based Depression?

A sad story about a man's brother and electroconvulsive therapy reminded me of why I've always struggled to respond to queries framed as; "Would you be slim if you could?" The short answer is that weight can't be separated from the state of your metabolic function and your body's use of energy.

Consider Stephen Mayers-the writer's brother. The article tells the story of how he developed a deep and intractable form of depression ten years before the end of his life. In the end his cause of death was a heart attack. Certain things leapt out, 

A life that had been little more than an extended stupor, enlivened only by the gobbling of stodge...

Insatiable appetite for carbohydrates-ready energy.

The article itself is defending the revival of ECT-electroconvulsive therapy, where electrodes deliver electric shocks to the brain to induce seizures. This supposedly can relieve the deepest of depressions, presumably by destroying certain functions of the brain,

The addiction to discomfort eating, which brought only self-hatred, was ousted by a renewed passion for cycling.

Something was wrong with his body's use of energy and a signal of this prompted feelings of self loathing, well done 'obesity' crusade.

As the writer and professor of clinical psychology Andrew Solomon has sagely noted, the opposite of depression is not happiness, but vitality.

For "vitality" we can read, flow as well as presence of energy. Once ECT broke through depression, the brother felt a restored urge to really stimulate his flow of energy via activity.

It's possible that heart trouble was the cause of what was perceived solely as his state of mind. It could also have been something else that eventually caused his heart to succumb, perhaps something about the workings of his digestive system.

How ECT works is not fully understood. The damage from these induced seizures seem to have the effect of separating certain functions in the brain associated with depressions' circular thinking, this undermines depression.

Our results show that ECT has lasting effects on the functional architecture of the brain. A comparison of pre- and posttreatment functional connectivity data in a group of nine patients revealed a significant cluster of voxels in and around the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortical region (Brodmann areas 44, 45, and 46), where the average global functional connectivity was considerably decreased after ECT treatment (P < 0.05, family-wise error-corrected). This decrease in functional connectivity was accompanied by a significant improvement (P < 0.001) in depressive symptoms;

[My emphasis] It's possible that it affects functioning in the gut, sort of reversing the effect of gastric mutilation.

One thing that has revealed to more people is the intimate connection between that area, the brain and the heart/circulatory system.

Invisible Free Market

Plain packs for the chips features in essence what could be deemed the [conservative/right wing] libertarian stance on weight, one incidentally found all over fat activism;

Adults should have the right to be as fat as they please. It is nobody’s business how healthy you are. And it is no one’s fault but your own if your junk food habit gives you health problems.

For the sake of clarity this doesn't and never has represented the way I feel regardless of who utters whatever version of it. I do not accept self-appointed fanatics get to set the standard for what is healthy merely because they have big mouths and know how to use hate.

Unless there's a choice not to be fat there's hardly a choice to be fat either. Calorie restriction as the only means to induce weight loss isn't choice and its an option like smoke yourself thin.

Who got to decide what does and doesn't constitute choice? The same people who created the contrived way of referring to people above a certain size, slim people, not the people concerned. This statement doesn't bother to ask what choices they actually have or would wish to have.

The writer presumes to know oh so much better.

I realised the other day that no-one in the whole of my life has ever asked me if I wanted to [weight loss] diet.

I don't mean in that snidely way of imply a person needs to, in their opinion, 'lose weight'. I mean no-one has ever asked me how I would have liked to lose weight.

This is what those who consider themselves the vanguard of defending choice condescend to define as choice, for others, not themselves. 

I'm probably not the person to go to for what the various declensions of conservatism/right-winginess. I had the impression though, that the let the market decide people and, people know what's best for them, they don't need to be dictated to by governments et al, would have a better grasp of what they supposedly believe in.

But if we are dictated to by libertarians, I suppose we should what, feel privileged?

So much for the "invisible hand".

It's called H-U-N-G-E-R

"Sell high calorie foods in plain packaging to beat obesity, says brain prize winner", a brain prize winner, the Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Prize to be precise, must know exactly what they're talking about.

We are to believe anyone who would even think of gainsaying anything Wolfram Schultz, to put a name to him, uttered on such matters would be some way out of their depth. An "anti-science" sort not worth listening to, isn't that so?  We are all cowered to be sure, 'til we get to the lols.

First, a bit of context,

“We should not advertise, propagate or encourage the unnecessary ingestion of calories,” [really?]

Then he utters the immortal line;

“There should be some way of regulating the desire to get more calories. 

What a fantastic idea, there should be. Wait a minute, there is. I've found it,

H-U-N-G-E-R!

Hand me mucho dinero. Give me a frackin' prize.

I almost don't want to go on as that sums up the mess that is the ob cult and its weight is cals in minus cals used underpinnings. That mes amis is toute-les-choses [I'm feeling all Hercule P]. You need little more to grasp just how much this type of ideology has the minds of its subjects utterly pinioned to the point where reason is wasted on them.

They don't want to deal with hunger, their compulsion to impose it, starvation and anorexia on others is only exceeded by their desire to deny this. Trying to convince everyone hunger doesn't really exist. You don't eat because you are hungry, you're not hungry, you're emotional. 

This man is a scientist but that gives no immunity from this neurosis. He shared a prize for his research into reward systems-not a coinage I've ever had a whole lot of time for, could be worse though. Yet he doesn't actually get that hunger exists to regulate intake.

If he or anyone else feels there's any problem with hunger, then that should be the target of adjustment, not food. I am literally thankful every day that I'm no longer troubled by relentless; hyper functioning, overactive, hypersensitive and implacable hunger I was in the past. Seeking to control what people eat to in this way seeks to replace the adjustment of hunger. They believe they can be your hunger better than your actual function. The one designed for the purpose.

Which doesn't go away, all that happens is the setting up of a clash with these artificial outside bounds. 

Are other people really designed to be your hunger?

Yes, it's true that food manufacturers seek to influence your eating, even to the extent of controlling it, in the sense of wanting you to chose their products over others-whether that works for you or not. However, these people do not arm folk against that, they merely become a counter extreme that turns you into a battleground for their skirmishes with each other.

The problem with the crusade and ci/co is it begins and ends it seems with eating, which is too late in the process. It comes after hunger. Eating is the response to that, not some sinister pathology or original sin.

De-contextualising eating in this way simply becomes a source of further disorder and dietary mayhem. Which intriguingly relates to an area of interest for Schultz, understanding how memories are formed, according to this geeze and others, this could help with learning how to unravel [undesired] memories. Like not being able to remember hunger exists or what its for.

All for the desire to control what other people eat.

Bob Attack

I see from Ragen that Bob Harper has had a heart attack *pause*. That's right, the main trainer on the Biggest Loser (US) has succumbed to heart trouble.

After spending years barking at fat people like a rabid dog, ordering them to starve and torture themselves with exercising till they/cry/ vomit/breakdown emotionally has up and fallen down into a dead faint needing medical intervention to save his life.

No motivation-inspiration for him, proper techniques based on biological reality that actually do what they are supposed to do. Imagine that. 

 Bob Trying to give some victims an "obesity-related" Bob Attack

Bob's situation also reinforces my oft made point that TBL shows just how healthy, healthy people are [regardless of their size]. That shitshow has never managed to give any of them a Bob Attack despite obviously trying. Summing up the extent of fakery involved in a crusade desperate for people to be unhealthy whether they are or not. Hereby being the first crusade to mandate psychosomatic illness in modern times, perhaps ever. 

Consider, how much of any of his 'work-outs' could Bob do right now? *Shudder* it beggars thought. And that my friends is what MORBIDITY actually is. Not a way to repurpose a personal yuck factor, an insult or an emotional terror tactic.

Bob representing typical fitness industry ignorance

No wonder he was driven to do so much keep fit! The poor sucker was trying to outrun his fate. Something he has in common with his victims who seek to outrun their assigned fate, it rarely works for either.

Perhaps that's why so many of these fitness types can summon up so much inexplicable "anger". It's their FEAR screaming. 

There's also displacement. Using fat people as vehicles for diet and exercise tropes doubles up as an exhortation of self-to keep going with your 'fitness' and keep these feelings at bay/keep hold of your life.

Kind of like the slimming business, where people go to keep up the restriction their bodies have succumbed to, seeking prolongation of the effect through making careers as nutritionists, personal trainers and the like.

How sneakily our inner needs manifest themselves!

I can't say if its statistically significant, but it does seem that if you throw a population at diet and exercise that an uncanny amount who are able to stick with it do seem to need some means of seeing off their fate.

It begs the question of just how much the body knows what is in store. Whether there was some 'injury' or malfunction all along waiting to implode.This is then read through the conscious insistence that all metabolic alteration must take the restriction exercise course.

If there was proper means of making adjustment, that worked with rather than against the body, that could have spared poor Bob. 

People like this would probably be better off with a more gentle way of handling their inheritance, keeping their body relaxed and their mind calm.

This is of course why so many people cannot sustain these quack fitness regimes [with the emphasis on regime]. Their bodies know what their more pliant (conscious) minds do not, that this sort of self-abuse could bring matters to a conclusion before they would like. 

According to reports, Bob did not bob, he dropped like a stone and had to be virtually snatched from the coffin by a friendly paramedic. He is at 51, literally, a coffin-dodger.

He like fat children and adults, has had the rug well and truly pulled from under him. His confidence is shaken and he'll feel vulnerable and scared. Every twinge will now bring doubt, is this the end? Welcome to our world Bob. To what it feels like to be terrorised by health.

My advice? Get over that. Overlook it and focus on the positive, take care of yourself, forgive your poor body which can only do its best.  Appreciate it and be kind to it and yourself as a person. That's what we're trying to do and what everyone like yourself is trying to put us off doing.

Imagine that.

On the road to recovery. Required to wear these monitors for a while. Thank you all for your kindness. You have no idea how much it helps. ❤ pic.twitter.com/elK68VbhC5

— Bob Harper (@MyTrainerBob) 28 February 2017

Oh we have every idea. It'll be interesting to see whether and to what extent he shows any contrition for his past actions. However that pans out, I'll be expecting a work-out and special diet for invalids, special work-outs for recovering from actual rather than pretend illness and so forth.

Or perhaps he'll go away and hide like "obesity shut-ins" have to do due to the triumphant reign of the ideology he represents/ represented, I kind of doubt that, don't you?

Other lessons are available of course; the difference between health and fitness, Bob was fit, not necessarily healthy (not right now any how). Only slim people are allowed to acknowledge the possibility of genetic inheritance, that when health becomes 'behavioural' everybody has to explain themselves.

There are millions of Bobs and Robertas, heart attacks affect as many who have none of the personal markers associated with them as do, and so on and on....

Trying to tell anyone into fitness this sort of thing though is like trying to tell a romantic that there won't necessarily be a fair maiden/man riding to their rescue. Well remember next time they're hating on you, that they could well be fighting for their own life.

Dog eat dog.

Surprise, Surprise!!!

We all learn exactly the same frame for understanding weight based on weight=calories in, minus calories expended. The first thing most capable of objective observation learn is that there's something missing from that equation.

Looking at this exchange is indicative of the limitations of a starting point that doesn't lend itself to any other than its own ideology;

you said it...in a word. Thermodynamics. It doesnt matter how few calories you eat if your body cant burn them. Even with exercise, if your thyroid and adrenal system isnt functioning properly, you wont lose weight. It's a FACT.

It's in response to a deleted comment, the response to it is one I've tidied up for your reading pleasure;

Your body burns calories merely by the exchange of oxygen through the processing of breathing, [precious flower]. The ONLY time a body isn't burning calories is when you're dead, [sweetness]. 

The most important point to make is these pieces of information do not contradict each other. I'm not sure about the specifics of how the adrenal system and thyroid function interact with the maintenance-or otherwise-of adipose tissue, so I can't really confirm or deny the comment on its face. What I can say though is that the function of the glands is key to understanding fat metabolism, of that there is little doubt.

I agree with the second comment which simply draws attention to what is missing from the much taught weight hypothesis. He goes on;

Do you realize that WHEN YOU SLEEP you, literally, burn calories. Normally, a person burns about 0.42 calories for every pound in one hour of sleep. For instance, a 150 lb. person burns about 63 calories in one hour. 

The first commenter's conclusion comes from her basis of understanding in the only one taught. She's assuming-as we all do to some extent- that fatness is all about energy or intake not being (fully) used up.

Yet as the second commenter says, the body is always using energy, so how can people store much of it beyond a certain point? His issue is the erasure of hunger. In supporting this hypothesis, it has to go from a response, to random conscious decision. From something that fits into the context of metabolic function, to something somehow outside and imposed upon it.

His criticism of her is criticism of the basis of his own rationale, rather like those who criticise HAES, just end up criticising the notion that a healthy diet/lifestyle increases, maintains or creates health.

His stance is rage and hate, but he has no real quarrel with what she's saying without having a quarrel with himself. Any lack of science literacy comes from those who provide what purports to be 'science' the same he's basing his comments on.

His quarrelsome stance uses her (fat) body as if it is making an argument against his. As with all fat haters and 'obesity' promoters, their real argument is with the true nature of biology. They just sort of anthropomorphise that into an argument with any random fat person.

Fat bodies stand in testiment to their falsity. If they can get rid of them, their delusion can triumph. If they cannot get get rid of fatness, they can get rid of fat people, from the public sphere.

This causes them to twist and turn. When the AMA made their loco-lying position, haters expected us to welcome it as some kind of status symbol. They raged against [giving us] excuses. Such velocity had their fury, that it took a while for them to catch on that few self respecting fatz had any interest in such lying nonsense.

When their brains finally adjusted, they immediately switched tack and said we were in denial. That's if they didn't just treat us as if we were the AMA.

Ditto when the phony addiction babble came up, they sneered that we felt we were better than (drug) addicts.

We are told we look for excuses, when we refuse what could be deemed excuses, we are criticised for that by the same people. They must know their fakery is becoming more and more obvious, they're just to far gone, leave them to it. 

The second commenter, like others presents this kind of thing as evidence of fat people's dishonesty-your fat body is using up so much energy, you must be taking in so much more. This is where 'obesity' mongers have always leveraged the shaming of fat people to suppress our potential input, to avoid any real progress. 

It ends up with fat people being unable to discover/reveal surprising or unexpected information about human function, but that is exactly what we have done. This refusal to allow us to offer out discoveries to others, not only reduces progress for all, it turns the surprise of being human into a symbol of slim people's status.

I say this to the white coats and freelance internet trolls: We won't be silenced anymore.