Liberation Gainer

When a dieting/gym bunny type elects to take a gainer holiday [or path], it's to satisfy their own desires, rooted in fatigue with the diet and exercise strictures they impose upon themselves. Spurlock's excuse was to show the supposedly typical 'merican obese's habits that he made up. Well who's going to argue? This enthusiastic carnivore had long adhered to a vegan diet to fit in with this amoureuse.

Some personal training types hanging out with fat people, start building up enticingly verboten impressionistic curiosity. The usual projections of what a fat person is surreptitiously becomes a vehicle for fantasies of what they feel they aren't. Eventually the need for release comes through their tried and tested yen toward a body modification solution. There's the added sensual/ sexual thrill of feeling their own [self generated] adiposity. I mean, really feeling it.

We query why folks don't listen to what fat people say about being fat. But overlook that the construct is as much if not more of a mindwarp to others as it is to fat people. They can't hear us. The disconnect of fat people as disease blocks comprehension. If you are the only ones who are fully human, you become the only valid vehicle for human experience.

Katie Hopkins wishes to teach fatz all about taking responsibility. Wishing to “prove” it’s easier to lose weight than some [fat] people say. I'd say its more dysfunctional, stupid and degenerate.

Is her ability to support her chosen attitude to fat people flagging? Just how much unquestioned security does a person need? It’s her choice; if she wants to use the sight or thought of a fat person to feel any feeling, that’s her business and nothing to do with any qualified fat person applying any job she may have on offer in any of her enterprises.

That's the trouble, people like this can't keep their boneheaded mental grunts to themselves. They have to void their problem with "fat people", onto fat people. 

It's known that her body can shed weight. She was shown in The Apprentice, looking plumper than she subsequently dieted down to, though not in quite the same way as now. Her body extended beyond her usual equilibrium to accommodate her circumstances, then deflated making her expert in human metabolic functioning. This lack of humility can at times, be moderately amusing. 

But hey, don't milk it!

In terms of the position fat occupies for her, emotionally. It seems a space to toy with her own feelings about being branded "ugly" by those close to her. She, like certain self hating fatz boasts of her strength of character in accepting this. Despite her actions not exactly backing this up. She can become "pretty" i.e. slim, this time, the judgement isn't so damning.

I daresay she feels fat people don't appreciate the sheer immutability of other judgements. When all we have to do is swerve the bacon.

Though she's getting paid, she would have said no if she didn't want or need to do this.

Usual odd features of this fat for pay feeder sub-species apply. The urge to define the experience of being fat is in order to impose it on fat people. This time with added sob; addicty, complex mental pwablems= 'overeating' leptin da de dah, instead of lazy and greedy. @besity's a construct all about its architects and adherents. Their instinct is to uphold their own tedious fiction.

More interesting is the speedy weight gain, faster than even than many fat people at the top of the weight tree averaged out. 3 stones/42lbs/19.5 kg in three months! Imagine putting on that x4 on every year. On she says 6,500 calories a day.

At that rate, most people in the 'obese' category would've taken between 2 and less than 6 months from her 8st/112lbs/50.8kg starting point. Doubling from that would have taken less than another 3 on the end of that. This might give insight into the much touted gluttony of obeses.

It also tells you if you don't know that being fat isn't about-this. In the main dieting up as I call it is more fetish. That's probably the best lens to view this kind of irrelevant sideshow. Normally, gain is metabolically led. And, despite doing exactly what fat people are accused of but we can see, rarely do-mindlessly choosing to be greedy and get fat, and freely admitting it, praise ensues.

Anyone still want to insist fat people are hated because we are/are seen to be greedy? 

Anyway, this begs repeat of the observation, these weight managers on a break, can really pack it on. Leaving aside things that usually provoke this rate; drugs, hormonal flux-puberty, menopause, rebounding from weight loss dieting/ drug abuse or some other metabolic overture. This kind speed of rise shouldn’t occur.

How is it this possible to just mechanically eat without the apparent response to hunger?

Remember all those thin/ner who complain bitterly about the impossibility of putting on weight [via dieting up]? They aren’t lying. Imagine having sex without desire for it. Not impossible, but sustaining it several times a day for months?

Food should quickly become unpalatable with nothing more than conscious notion. That's how my body was able to recover from hyperphagia. One of the last diets I tried was high protein. It was an unserious last throw of the dice, no pressure to restrict calories. I lasted two bites of meat before it turned to an unpleasant tasting rubble in my mouth. That was an example of the disgust reflex. Your body's reaction, thwarting the prospect of any narrowing of its ability to meet nutritional needs.

You may think you or anyone can just eat, but many people would be surprised at how hard going they'd find the mere thought of calorie dense food after a while without biological drive.

I'm not saying I couldn't eat as much myself, but it would have to be driven by hunger, disordered or not. That's why I keep saying the problem with HN isn't food-its hunger signalling.

The obsessive fixation on eating comes from those who deal in restriction, which they then project onto fat people-as we can see from their fantasy of being fat. Once that's gone there's little desire to eat for no reason.

Indeed I'm not entirely convinced of that proposition. Though I'm wary of appearing to contradict those with binge eating disorder.

Perhaps this long term diet and desire to gain illuminates binge eating disorder. The ability to diet, then reaching some kind of impasse then swinging back with bingeing. This might feel subjectively like a conscious elective choice to eat, of the "I use food" variety. Bingeing may well be that impasse, plus those signals re-awakening. You go from feeling in control to being swept away, so the latter feels willful in contrast.

Dieting requires you to ignore your inner signalling. That's likely to put you out of touch with it, which both undermines it's clarity and your ability to read it. This suggests that hunger is there but in some minds it is tuned out partially or wholly. A bit like, when you go for a massage and when relaxing, you begin to feel how tense you are. You were always, but you'd stopped being aware of it was your mind screened it out. 

Who knows what internal prompt could be operating here, translating into this subjective desire to walk on the fat side? The more it happens, the more one has to consider whether this could be prompted by some kind of internal crisis being reached.

How many of these types reach a point where they too just climb off the horse and stretch their legs for a bit? How rare is this among these people?

A constant long term diet and exercise regime where your average slim or a bit plump person, goes down to being.... slim is that it subjects their bodies to the same defences as any. But they're barely going anywhere, if at all. They aren't seeking to lose a 1/4,1/3/1/2 etc., of their body weight.

Metabolic conservation or slow down-accounting in part for this speedy gain and baggy indistinct, hunger and appetite signalling, is shown in this ability to eat by rote.

People overlook, eating requires digestion. It's not like taking a pill, where a drug quickly passes into the bloodstream ditto booze. With food, the body has to be prepared for it, in multiple ways. It takes effort to get it to that stage.

The ability to just eat, suggests a body in a ready to regain mode. Not much of anything to regain though. But, perhaps denial-of hunger- gives this greater capacity. They're sort of hungry and not always aware of it. They're out of synch with the feel of it. Hence this desire to eat mechanically without apparent drive.

Probably, this is how they eat all the time. From the head cutting across their bodies, not normally/intuitively. 

A fat person goes from fat to fat, a slim person goes from slim to slim. Why do people keep stating that once your 'obese' it's unlikely you'll become slim... Who's changing categories? Let the slim become thin. Let Katie's 8 st become 6 and stay there why not? That would replicate the experience better.

F4P's also to a wo/man pack it on much more around the middle than anywhere. This is arresting given this is the supposed metabolically active area. Though I do believe there is some truth in that, it's not in the way 'obesity' fans want. This is supposed to raise risk, not without doubt though.

Whilst this kind of regime lowers weight and is healthy making, it also seems to shift bodies towards metabolic activity around the middle, which we can't necessarily see 'til they put weight on it. Hum... could be the speed. Both forced eating and starvation tax the body. It's possible if they'd taken more time, they might've had a more even spread.

But, having seen a lot of these types gain due to being diverted from their course by personal circumstances. I'd say probably in degree only. So, the question is, how wise is it to go down this forcing route at all?

By that I don't mean dietary rigour and exercise, I mean the being this out of tune with your own signals?

I can't speak for all fat people but I could not do this. Nor would I attempt it for any money. Having spent years of my life with batshit hunger that wouldn't quit, this makes me want to chuck just thinking about it. I cannot eat mechanically as a notion, nor am I sure my body could gain that much weight that quickly. I also can't lose much without wasting a whole lot of time.

The lack of ability to lose + [compared to this] a lack of ability to gain fast. Versus fast gain, fast loss-also a sign of being "metabolically active." There's at least a symbolic equilibrium in both.

Fetish/Recovery

Wiki struggles with fatness.

Turns out that at some point it deleted its serviceable feederism page re-routing queries to fat fetishism, which is has a tangential relationship with it, if at all. If you're not sure what that is, its deviation from the required slim fetishism. That's when you find slimness physically attractive.

You pervert.

This is part of social politicking to tie feederism to solely to fatness in order to position 'obesity' and anorexia as opposites. Which is balderhockey because I've just realised feederism in the form of gaining, is a primary treatment for anorexia.

Not all feeders are fat nor want to get fat.

Some fill their stomachs or "bloat" with water and admire and revel in this (temporary) distention.

Basically, feederism is getting pleasure from being fed or gaining weight through eating. It can be part of sexual foreplay-incorporated into a relationship-or a thing in itself. You could just eat normally this way by for example doing without until your hunger creates an urge to binge.

This restrict/binge cycle can occur over a longer period. The urge to feederism can be related to the aftermath of long spells of high levels of physical activity-for its own sake.

There are separate parts to the phenomenon that are worth sketching out properly. Relating from memory.

Feeders; those who wish to feed someone else.

Feedees; those who wish to be fed

Gainers; those who wish to gain weight, whether they are thin slim plump or already fat.

Encourager, those wish to encourage people to be fed or to become feedees.

Fat admirer; someone who appreciates fatter bodies

Gainers associate certain higher weights with happiness and fulfilment, just like other dieters, the weight loss ones. And certain higher weights with betterment, like anorexic recovery becomes about them gaining.

Trigger Warning: Dieting

It takes a gainer to tell us something of what (weight loss) dieting would look more like if our view wasn't distorted by it's valourization. To the point of replacing ideas of what normal eating is like.

Tammy Jung is force feeding herself to gain weight. Her goal weight is 30 stones(420 pounds), at the moment she's at a paltry 250 (what a slacker). Well, she as a teen she was 8 stone (112 pounds), played sport-football and volleyball.

She always "felt fat", not good enough that is. Now, she is fat-if she can maintain it and whilst she doesn't feel good enough-yet, she does feel a sense of contentment. "Womanly" in fact.

Sport probably helped sharpen her competitive instincts. Teaching her about how pushing yourself through discomfort and pain barriers can feel like a noble end in itself. Encouraging discipline and sticking to your task, till the bitter end.

As well as building up quite an appetite to follow through on later. 

She weighs herself twice daily, using the readings to inform the balance of what and how much she'll eat subsequent to that. For instance, what she'll have for breakfast. Portion control is a must, as opposed to just mindlessly being in line with her needs and responding to them. Just like any other successful weight watcher.

She has to keep a keen eye on the scales, keeping track, making sure to catch any potential reversal of her sense of achievement.

There's always lots of pride available from exercising power over nature, in the form of changing your body through the management of your intake. You did that! All rather uber frauen. You didn't just leave it to chance.

Suspending mere need for a greater goal is a question of delaying gratification.

And don't forget the potential for drama too.  The suffering of having melted ice cream poured down a funnel to your throat.

Not because it meets your needs, but because it goes down when you can't eat any more solids. I think that's a tip!

Her boyfriend adores her at any size, so long as that's big. And is fully supportive and involved in helping her police her diet, to the point of seeming to be the principle food buyer and preparer.

Well, she has other things on her mind, like performing the intricate mathematics of her calorie intake and maintaining her man pleasing figure. Her diet is very expensive, costing as much as £70.00 in specially prepared food (take out).

Her doctor doesn't approve, they tend to object to dieting as we know.

She has been entrepreneurial enough to produce on-line video's featuring herself, doing various things, like ingesting calorie dense foods for the edification of paying BBW fanciers.

Jung did not indicate her regime with regard to activity. So the article was far from comprehensive. Though she was shown lounging around, she failed to show sufficient effort in moving around, so she could be missing a trick there. 

There is no failure, only feedback

Liver disease scientists look for ways to remedy liver conditions.

Lung disease scientists look for ways to remedy lung conditions.

Obesity scientists look for ..................... what exactly?

How many ways, fatness is a boo boo? How much fatties really should be quaking? How to perpetuate obesity science for the benefit of those employed by it?

Not the last one, that would be cynical. People like that are in it for the good of humankind.

Either way, the 'purpose' of obesity research doesn't seem to match the others, does it?

You don't have a dog and bark yourself as we say over here. Scientists are the dogs by the way.
If any of them wish to 'cure' fatness no one's stopping them. There has never been a point at which I've doubted for one second that the human body can shed weight as easily as it can gain it.
When you look at what the body can do and does, the way it forms and grows, all to a plan. it doesn't begin to be plausible on any level that a body that can gain weight, cannot lose it. For each and every force there is an equal and countervailing one.

That doesn't tell us whether its an opposite route to the original one or by some other pathway/s entirely. Just because you perceive one way, doesn't mean you can understand the other merely by reversing it. Brainy people know that better than any of us.

In fact, such is the response to induced weight loss by the body, it throws doubt on whether the route of weight gain itself is exactly as we think. It makes you wonder, is dieting the opposite of the way the body gains weight gain at all? Surely it would work better and be less painful if it was? I mean, think how painful weight gain is for most people most of the time; then think of dieting.

We are talking a chasmic difference.
How many gain weight in the Morgan Spurlock way, using his conscious and deliberate feeder diet? Beforehand, Spurlock had spent years on what was (for him) a highly restricted diet. Not wholly according to his own desires according to him, but to fit with his partner who is vegan. He planned his eating beforehand, based on dictates other than internal ones. To find out what would happen. Apparently he felt like really bad. It just so happens weight loss dieters don't feel to good either when they override their needs and requirements too.

No shit Spurlock.

Oh come on, it had to be done.

I wouldn't like to speculate. Moi? What I do know is if you try something and expect it to work and it doesn't. You find out why and use that information to take you toward what does.

If you are not doing that, if you behave like someone a in such a state of shock who can only repeat endlessly, it must be right, it just must be.

You tend to be seen as out of your gourd.

As the man said, the definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. If you are presenting what doesn't amount to much as that which amounts to what you want, you are presenting nothing by making it look like it is something. That's the point where you show you've accepted failure.

So when people talk of 'giving up' and 'failure', the only failure here, is the refusal to accept the truth, as it is and move on to finding a legitimate way to connect with that. Instead you keep the cycle of failure in motion. Nobody who's tried a diet, or attempted to try or who's tried 'healthy eating' and couldn't hack it, is a failure. Not at all.