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.

Evil Under the Sun part II

I want to make clear, whatever the whys and wherefores of fat phobia, the evil I was seconding yesterday is not that. Nor is it the desire or even insistence on inducing weight loss-though the latter is somewhat of a liberty, most people have been willing enthusiasts for losing weight at some point.

It's not even the insistence that people must take in less energy-though again, that too is an invasive infraction on someone's autonomy. No, the evil is the desire to force people to exist in an acute state of hunger because it is uncomfortable, painful, punishing.

It is this malevolent indulgence that has to challenged and blocked. The drive toward this is as out of control neurotic as it is completely unnecessary. What I was pointing at is that even if you insist on reducing the amount of calories other people take in the most rational, efficient and humane way of going about this is to reduce hunger function.

Not to suppress it, why would you do that?

If you feel someone is taking too many breaths, i.e. hyperventilating, and demanded they reduced their intake of air, what would be your instinctive response- to suppress their breathing? To tell them to cover their mouth and nose with a cloth so they found it harder to breathe? Would you then and act all surprised when they instinctively removed the cloth when the urge to take a proper breath became irresistible, when they "came off" your plan for them so to speak?

Or would your impulse be to reduce breathing activity? And what path do you think that would take? Calming them down. There's a symbiotic interaction between the overall level of stimulus in the body and breathing rate, i.e. walk faster, breath faster [and harder].

Increased anxiety, breathing rate goes up.

In this situation you are likely to tell them "Caaaalm, dowwn", emphasising with your hands like playing an invisible sinking piano, whilst mouthing exaggeratedly slowed breaths, indicating they should follow suit.

Even if you don't care about anything but getting folks to lower their calorie intake, you still have no reason to starve people but your own desire. On the contrary, you should know that will lead only to the thwarting of what is supposed to be your wish for them to eat less. As people are unlikely to be able to tolerate this discomfort and urge to do something so in-built. 

This desire to starve people is itself an imbalance. If it ever started from an opinion-that people should lose weight because you say so-it has crept from that to an urge, a need even to make people hurt. To put them and keep them in a world of that pain because of how you feel inside. To meet your emotional need.

Like a hang 'em/flog 'em type who doesn't care what the consequences of inflicting punitive rough treatment  good, bad or indifferent. Rarely satisfied, they believe anyone convicted of a crime in jail should expect the possibility of being raped, beaten up and possibly shivved, on top of the loss of their liberty.

As far as they're concerned, the person made that choice when they decided to 'overeat', sorry, commit a crime.

Those who act under the influence of this anorexia or starvation-by-proxy compulsion exploit the power of assertion over others afforded them by the crusade and its calories in/out =weight premise.

This sense of rectitude-that it is good to starve those who deserve it-that means any weight loss must be induced via this means alone. Leading to self-starvers everywhere. It is a mess.

The need for a moral cleansing of the sin of "overeating" being fat represents this, regardless of what people do or don't eat. Only being slim stands of excision of sin, so as long as a person is fat, they are in an unclean state, a state of sin. 

Nazis, bigots, misanthropes, original sin-ists, eugenicists, psychopaths, everywhere love this, flocking to it like birds of a feather. They define humans as essentially hateful, savage and unclean who need brutal treatment, by the few strong and better to civilise and cleanse them of the sin of existing-once they exit the womb of course.

The 'obesity' crusade/crisis/panic has of course stoked, encouraged and liberated what would otherwise be checked by reaction to its awfulness.

Worship of hunger is for those who are [or have become] literally excited, turned on by the prospect of other people existing in pain and torment. 

Evil Under the Sun

Sometimes it takes a slim person to respond aptly to weight outrages. Emma Thompson on the brutally honest truth about how Hollywood stays thin,

"The anorexia - there are so many kids, girls and boys now, and actresses who are very, very thin, who are into their 30s, simply don't eat,” she said.

Thompson says she threatened to quit when one of her co-stars was asked to lose weight,

She was absolutely exquisite. I said to them, 'If you speak to her about this again, on any level, I will leave this picture. You are never to do that’. It's evil, what's happening, what's going on out there, and it's getting worse.”

Thank goodness someone has their brain switched on and sadly, for the suffering of people who's humanity hasn't been thrown out like some old trash. I've said myself, the fundamental problem with the crusade isn't fat phobia or even weight loss, it's the insistence on using starvation. And there is something of the occult about that particular insistence.

It is wholly unecessary. 

A lot of what fat people endure is either starvation, the threat of or aftermath of it, and what it provokes. Inflicting and maintaining artificial famine, plus the fightback takes it out of the body, not like smoking, but smoking does too. Repeated campaigns and merely the threat of them eventually exhausts the nervous system. I suspect the fightback is what really takes it out of you in the end.

This doesn't show up for obvious reasons. The fitness freaks pretending to gorge in order to find out what its like to be fat make the error are going the wrong way to support their self denuding falsie.

You can tell this-when people truly experience what other people are, they relay similar experience- a tad difficult for fat people given the internment of fat people's lived experience. Those who diet up the scale for a rest from their lifestyle straight jacket say exactly the same things as before. Same worthless buzzwords, airless verbiage, artless wittering. No development, no insight, no real change.

Talking about the pain of doing something few fat people have ever participated in-planned weight gain/ fatness.

Anyone who knows anything about therapy, knows what I'm talking about. Real insight, shakes you up in some real way. It gets under your guard.You become a changed person, even if only a little, you either know more or you perceive more, often both.

If those temporary gainers were going the right way and actually starved their bodies, we'd all be surprised at how much they'd start talking like fat people. It's one reason why enthusiasm for untrammelled fat phobia is waning. People are increasingly recognising that if they have to starve merely to remain slim or thin, then what would it take for a fat person to slim down.

One surprise of history is how many battles were decided more by cutting off the food supply rather than shots fired. People who had a larger than life will to fight surrendered rather than endure either it or most likely, the starvation of those they were fighting with or in the name of.

So bad is this use of starvation it's deemed a war crime.

It takes real loathing to starve a person. Real rage and compulsion to enthuse about it for this long. Starvation is not a lifestyle, its a deathstyle. A way and means of dying. Even among people who are lauded and rarefied hunger rises to form an aura that is noticeable, past a certain point.

What's occult and yes evil is starvation as the only means of inducing weight loss. It's clearly the wrong way, why would anyone who's not fat have to starve if 'overeating' =gain? This alludes to a similar state as those fat people who find after several rounds of dieting and rebound that their system will not succumb much to strenous restriction.

Despite not eating any outrageous amounts they manage to be fatter than anyone would expect for their intake. That's why the starvation of thin people was oh so predictable. People are getting into trouble with anorexia now before they're close to thin. I don't know exactly why, but our bodies seem more resistant to it than in the past. They are more resistant to death, due to genuine public health measures.

But the desire to starve fat people has become such a dominant overriding compulsion that people cannot stop acting on that impulse, on that feeling, on that emotion. So used are they to ordering others to change themselves root and branch, they don't imagine they need to take their own advice when it comes to their love of wanting others to starve.

Like an actual anorexic, they must get over this. It's a poisonous and corrupt urge.  See how children are used to promote this urge.

I've said for years that this desire for death says something profound about western model of society. Some might say its an outlet for eugenics, the notion of culling those considered unworthy of life, the so called 'useless eaters'. Ironic phrase that.

Saving 'Obesity' Crusade Delusions

If you're overseas you may not know UK TV station Channel4 still thinks it has a bit of a reputation for edgy forward thinking television-out of the other big 5 terrestrial channels. Despite this, the furrow it ploughs with fatsploitation is brain dead standard issue at its most banal.

As with a lot of middle class metropolitan types, station honchos are on board with 'obesity' construct agit-prop. Tonight they're airing an episode of their long running 'Dispatches' series called "The Secret Plan to Save Fat Britain".

Indeed. 

That could be read with an unfortunate-for them-literalism, as an assessment of the last 40 years of 'obesity' campaigning. To not only save fat people from not exiting fatness, but to add to and ballast their number. Think about it, if fat people had succeeded in their plans to 'lose weight' all these decades (centuries), this wouldn't be a thing.

The calorie restriction model has saved fatness from extinction-against the will of fat people themselves.

Anyhow, this programme is apparently an 'investigation' (plz) into how the current prime minister Teresa May has "watered down" the government's scattergun grand plan to regulate metabolic function from the outside in.

This grand stratagem is driven by increasing the encroachment of the organising principle of our era-lifestyle anorexia. Stuff like making restaurants include calorie counts on their menus, stopping supermarkets from offering certain promotion deals, getting them to remove sweets from checkout areas, reducing advertising an marketing calorie dense foods and other measures to reduce intake.

Anything but the most obvious and scientific, which would be to give people the ability to lower their hunger. And no, that doesn't require drugs, just more experimentation with using our thought processes to affect our function. An area of human capacity that's sorely underdeveloped.

It needs to happen for those who have an excess of hunger function. Contrary to assertion, its relatively rare, so people do not get how disturbing it is- including fat activists and some who claim to have something called-binge eating disorder. I'm not talking about binge eating, I'm talking about excessive hunger.

After finding efficient ways to bring this about, that can be applied to normal hunger. Whether that's a good idea or not I'll leave up to the individual, but that would be the best, easiest, healthiest way to reduce intake. However, this reducing of hunger, leaves control of what you eat with the individual, clearly that's an important target for those who feel everyone else's hunger/appetite is an extension of their own.

And should therefore be under their diktat. 

The programme implies it will dig deep to uncover food industry machinations to expel policies from the lifestyle disorder manifesto. I'd be amazed if they hadn't lobbied their cause. Having been used to fat people the "obesity community" are struggling to deal with their own levels of cynicism and intransigence.

Its amusing to see the mainstream media-often bellyaching about social media's encroachment on the news agenda and how its a disaster not to leave the news agenda to metropolitan know-it-all classes.....- bending this into a conspiracyesque form.

The intimation is fat phobes would be "do something" about 'obese' if it wasn't for those pesky industrial food varmits and their underhand nefarious tactics.

In truth, this whole shebang depends on the inherent dysfunction of the calorie restriction model. The upshot of that being a success would decimate industrial food as we know it. Along with that, a lot of the transfer of employment from the heavy industries of yore.

Even this far into that process that bottom line hasn't slimmed down. Indeed, it would reverse what is keeping many millions going financially. Whether you insist fat ='overeat' or no more than anybody else, the permanent state of semi-starvation required by this method, would strike a massive blow to the food economy. Not to mention the cultural impact of a quarter, more or less of the adult population in a permanent state of hanger.

This doesn't tend to come up in these discussions. Instead you get repetition of the have cake and eat it too fantasy. Food needs to be restricted for the 'irresponsible' people who can't control themselves, but not for those who can.

It's been pointed out that if the latter are so sparing in their intake of popular calorie dense foods- they'd hardly miss them-especially given their massive self control.

The calorie restriction model is especially unsuited for liberal capitalist society. The nature of it requires a dictatorship like control/mismanagement of the food environment. Its invasive outer dictation, need to interfere with commerce and to dismantle a lot of what provide incomes for those who'd otherwise struggle gaining employment pits it against forces societies want to beat it. The almost complete lack of real opposition means no one has to face up to this. The failure of restriction is an integral part of sustaining most people's 'obesity' crusade delusions.

Putting 'Obesity' First

The chiefest mortal foe of 'obesity' wallahs and their fund sucking crusade is TRUTH.

Though it has been kept pretty quiet, the flatulent puffery of 'costs of obesity' has always been dwarfed by the UK healthcare costs of malnutrition. Estimated in a bapen report as being around 14.4 billion, 2011-12. 

In the developed world, malnutrition is mainly a province of the old. Appetite and hunger often decline in function with age, bad health and infirmity. Older people can struggle to feed themselves due to these and other issues from lack of funds, to loneliness-if they're used to eating as a communal practise. Far too often, it occurs from neglect of feeding during stays in hospital.  Either patients are admitted for malnutrition itself or illness separate and related to it. 

In less developed countries, its among the majority poverty stricken populace, hitting children especially hard. Undermining their physical development, in terms of stature and intellect.  Even killing them before they've had a chance to live.

A lesser stated fact of malnutrition is that it can increase the mental health burden by reducing the energy available to a growing brain and nervous system, leading it to be more fragile, less able to recover from emotional knock backs, of which there are far more of in society with puny infrastructure and systemic corruption.

Malnutrition refers to too few calories for the maintenance of basic health. A hangover from the time when it was recognised without phony argument that energy is a basic requirement of human existence. It is the primary nutrient, one which cannot be done without. Hence, malnutrition the absence of sufficient nutrition or energy. Badly nourished.

It should be obvious that this is too important a concept, responsible for a yearly death toll of 300,000 children under-five, to be cluttered with a self-involved Western theatre of contrivance that is the ob crusade.

Enter public health jockeys, oblivious to the grotesque comparison with their self-indulgent play-acting,

Professor Corinna Hawkes, who co-chaired the research, said the study was "redefining what the world thinks of as being malnourished".

Is that so? I mean why restrict yourself to meaningful use of terms? Common meanings enable folk to communicate with each other. The report is portentously called "from promise to impact, ending malnutrition by 2030." Jamie Oliver, amongst other bigwigs, turns up briefly-listed as "chef and campaigner".....[not going there].

I hope this includes agitating for trade rather than exploitation then "aid" out of the profit of that.

"You have outcomes like you are too thin, you're not growing fast enough… or it could mean that you're overweight or you have high blood sugar, which leads to diabetes," she said.

Too thin?!? Malnutrition is capable of leading to actual illness like Kwashiorkor, its not "body image" trivia. Disease and illness itself can lead to malnutrition.

Weight is not really an issue of diet anyway. It's mainly an issue of metabolic function. It is turned into an issue of diet at the behest of those invested in peddling that as their career. The "obesity crisis" is a contrivance of science-blocking.

It has delayed by misframing, misdirection, distraction, hype, hysteria and obfuscation a truer grasp of how our bodies regulate weight. It is intrinsically regressive, denying people real power and more tangible dominion over their own bodies.

Seeking only to put it in the hands of drug manufacturers and dubious professionals. No wonder the likes of Hawkes finds this rather exciting, as in ££££xciting. I find it a sickening waste of human resources. Nor is weight about the injustices of food economics and systemic corruption of power elites. On the contrary, corporate reach has been aided by the crusade's insistence that weight is an issue of individual dietary restriction. Using that as an excuse to give industrial food carte blanche to shape our environment.

Weight is still cast as an individual fault, only the casting of phony individualism, has changed to phony liberal leftism of, a problem with food systems, plays both ends like a fiddle, until they're inclined to take a closer look.

"Weight management" has replaced weight loss dieting with a far more invasive and intimate management of people. Insisting on control of diet, appetite, activity, habits and interests as well as minds, emotions, thought processes.

Along with directing people to become drug dumpsters for useless and yet toxic meds Big pharma struggles to flog anywhere else. Does that sound like an enterprise that has an answer?

This spectacle has also put the developing world on a countdown to add this expensive mess to old unsolved problems like malnutrition, so they overlap in a nice double whammy effect that so often plagues the world's poorest citizens. 

Well done Western 'obesity' wallahs and its white coat mafia, you must be so proud.

The other co-chair of this report, Lawrence Hadda did amuse me though,

"We now live in a world where being malnourished is the new normal.

"It is a world that we must all claim as totally unacceptable." 

Does he sound in any real anguish to you? They never do. They still can't find a way to fake sincerity, the old Hollywood axiom of the key to success in showbiz. Public health, showbiz for people who would otherwise have been sociologists, priests, successfully eating disordered. Ob always was a kind of rogue sociology.

One can only hope this doesn't further obscure an issue of genuine significance.  It was a little disconcerting to read Tulip Mazumdar's byline, frequently seen reporting various traumas and events in Africa.

 Note how 'obesity' comes first.

Target, Hunger

Intriguing news of a fresh attempt to defeat the menace that is hunger. That's not referring to ending hunger in the world. It's a reference to the vital business of ignoring hunger in order to prompt weight loss. This potential calorie restriction diet aide is something called "gastric artery emobolization".

It consists of injecting beads into those gastric arteries, reducing the blood flow to the stomach. That is intended to reduce the extent and power of hunger signalling, because eating is a response to (the provocation of) hunger, not emeaushuns.

Gastric artery embolization apparently targets the "fundus" or end of the stomach, said to generate a tranche of chemicals deemed to relate to/express feelings of hunger. That could explain why a slightly less radical weight loss surgery still seems as effective, as it appears to remove this part of the stomach too.

One wonders whether the mind cannot be trained to achieve the same reduction in blood flow or even hunger. According to the study-this effect faded quickly over time.

Hunger is a scale. It has the capacity to be increased and decreased, like temperature or blood pressure. "Suppression" would be aimed at reducing normal hunger to the pathological low required for this means of weight loss. Suppression prompts continuing attempts to recover whatever level of performance hunger is set at, especially if that is  normal and therefore healthy.

Ask yourself why you need to suppress normal hunger or hunger full stop? Excessive hunger requires a mechanical decrease, i.e. one that maintains itself homoeostatically, most of all.

An attempt is made to get round this by aiming the procedure at those more talented in fatness than the average fatzo, or the 'morbidly obese' as they're called in hope and expectation by [disappointed] 'obesity' wallahs. Alluding to the assumption that they must all 'overeat', which would indicate that those of lesser weight eat less than they. Both are false.

It has been tested on the sum total of 7 people, so perhaps its value is more in the tacit admission of the real target of the crusade. If you wish to target hunger, you'd be better off attacking it, rather than people's mental and physical health. Though it has to be repeated, attacking hunger is an attack on health.

Repeat disclaimer: Whether hunger is excessive or normal doesn't matter when it comes to calorie restriction induced weight loss- CRIWL. 

This urge to deny reality is epitomised by a response from "fair2middlin" to the article. I can't relate enough to this mentality to do it justice otherwise;

Most morbidly obese people over eat to alleviate emotional/psychological issues, not physical hunger. Most eat long past the point of fullness - some eat until they actually feel (or are) sick. Nobody needs 10,000 calories a day to stave off physical hunger. If this works for some, then great! If it works long term, and is affordable for more folks than bypass operations, then even better.

This of course ignores many things. All weight loss has to be through CRIWL even for the acceptably weighted, who presumably have unimpeachable hunger (if not appetites). What really appals though, [yet again] is the sheer depth of self-absorbed presumption. That because you have not had nor can imagine an experience, that it must not exist.

It's just too stupid for words, yet many people have this assumption-that hunger has no meter. We're all feeling the same thing in the same context.

Hunger has to be able to go from the normal levels we mostly tend to reference, to unimaginable power. Starvation has caused people to eat all sorts just in vain hope of relief. That speaks to its capacity. The surprise is that such levels can be triggered erroneously.

That hunger is real. It's just that it isn't apt. This isn't hard to grasp. It's the exact pattern of medical (rather than social) phobias. Acute fear is triggered in the absence of real threat to the person.

The fear is real. Ending it is a question of disabling the misfiring of that response. Not in pretending because there is no sabre toothed tiger that the fear isn't there. That would not be credible. But then phobias happen to slim people. So does hyperphagia too, that is erased by ideology.

The eating until you vomit then even continuing to eat should give a rational person a clue as to just how powerful such a response has become. It's like a moving car with no breaks rolling over everything in its path, even vomit.

I've never experienced such myself, given that I like many hyperphagiacs had palpable emetophobia. As that was symptomatic, there must be different types of hyperphagia.

This-nobody needs w/e calories-is beyond belief. The issue is malfunction. Those who lose little time in telling us how wrong fat bodies are, have an extraordinary inability to accept malfunctioning hunger.

Bigotry does make idiots out of people.

Make no mistake though, I quoted that bilge because it's exactly the unthink 'obesity' wallahs have been hiding behind all these years in order to support their pretence that CRIWL is either a rational or viable means to manage weight.

Despite their wretched and favoured butchery providing a massive clue that the better way to starve is to minimise hunger. Their denial is their invocation of "healthy." If they just admitted they want people to lose weight in an unhealthy way, they wouldn't need to engage in these mental charades.

Not that any of this delivers much slimness. We know the majority of the gastrically assaulted do not exit heavyweight. The other (major) element of denial is even harder for 'obesity' wallahs to get over.

Metabolic expenditure. That lack of success in the-attack hunger model-is that it ignores the body's conservation of energy which is not only seems to be a greater factor in weight, it also seems to be a greater factor in metabolic function and health, full stop.

Let's see how long that admission takes. 

Hunger is the Impulse, Eating the Response

Certain things immediately spike your attention, then fade to the back of your mind. They're so ubiquitous that though you keep tripping over them, you get into the habit of pressing on past them.

Going through a list of psychologists, one was quoted as expressing a widely held view-that eating is a behaviour. It's a sensibility straight from calorie/weight hypothesis: Weight as a direct product of your calorie intake minus your calorie output.

This comes from assuming hunger is some kind thought because we become aware of it via our conscious minds. This is an error of perception, as they say. A bit like assuming pain is a thought because you become aware of it in your head also.

Hunger is a collation of sensory data coming from all areas of your body, through its nervous circuits. That is what ends up in your brain. There's when you become aware of it. Hunger is an impulse, and I don't mean as in "impulse buy," I mean electrical activity transmitted through your nerves.

You know the music you hear from the radio doesn't come from inside the radio, don't you! That would be like the error we make with hunger, assuming its inside the box, when its mainly picking it up what is sent there.

Saying eating is a behaviour is not wholly inaccurate by strict definition, but it's misleading. It makes more sense to think of eating as a response [to hunger]. We can't feed ourselves through our own bodies. We are designed to run on energy extracted from food therefore our response to hunger has to be acted out. But that cannot be read completely as if its independent of that impulse. It is not useful and actually quite disruptive at times to cast eating as a personal decision apropos of emeaushun.

There might be a slight tangle in the difference between professional and layman's use of the term behaviour. "Manner of conducting oneself" is how we generally think of it. That fits in with the calories in/out which posits eating as acting out a whim. The psychological definition is more technical;

1. the aggregate of all the responses made by an organism in any situation
2. a specific response of a certain organism to a specific stimulus or group of stimuli

That's more like it, a bit different in emphasis to our notion of behaviour as some acting out of conscious will. It could apply just as easily to going to sleep, but no one thinks sleep is simply a conscious decision just because we have some angles for conscious regulation of it.

With something like breathing, you  respond to inhaling by exhaling, automatically. If you had to somehow act out exhalation part, would it make sense for you to see that as disconnected from inhaling?

Yes, it would be a behaviour in terms of response to stimuli, but you could not disconnect it from being a response triggered by inhalation. Whatever triggers or stems that. Could be the rhythm of your breathing, or in the case of those with certain allergies, pollen /some other nasal irritant, could be shock, anxiety, concentration, awe, pleasure, etc.,

Vital, inbuilt, anatomically generated impulses cannot be controlled in the way having abstract thoughts can. We attempt to regulate or should I say, re-regulate them. Because they are already regulating themselves. They have their own rhythm and self-sustaining momentum. Unless we're aiming to re-establish/reboot that, what we end up seeking to do is interrupt often disrupt this regulation trying to alter the outcome of it more to our liking.

Is important to grasp that with restrictive eating, we are disrupting something that's already designed to regulate itself.