The treatment for BED? Stop Calorie Restriction Dieting and Stop Pathologising Your Body/Self

American Addiction Centre's page called "Compulsive Overeating". The question with binge eating disorder has always been what is it?

...absolutely no control around food. Since many binge eaters restrict food intake...

If you are restricting your intake, then that's,  by these people's notion "control".

The snake swallows its tail after first slithering toward something getting hold of it in its teeth. The intensity of pursuit narrows its peripheral vision until it ends up biting its own tail. The cycle is complete and is able to perpetuate itself.

With anorexia-restriction, circuitry around the response to hunger seems to weaken and /or the circuitry around blocking is activated and becomes powerful. An ever decreasing vortex of response ensues.

With binge/purge-restricting certain foods, increases appetite for them til that becomes irresistible creating panic leading to a salvaging action of purging stomach contents (aspire assist) this reduces/threatens to reduce energy intake, which increases hunger function to compensate for lack or prospect of it. A cycle is established.

Then you have binge eating disorder, 

...defined as consuming large amounts of food within a two-hour period at least twice a week without purging, accompanied by a sense of being out of control.

That's not a cycle. Also, the equivalent of "purging" is the restriction beforehand. It's a reversal of binge/purge, instead its restrict/restore. One step forward, one step back.

That this is not really an eating disorder like anorexia or binge/purge is confirmed by this startling piece of information: "...an issue that’s remarkably responsive to treatment.." EDs aren't remarkably responsive to what passes for "treatment", because that doesn't consist of any technique that does the job of restoring response to hunger.

Responsivity to "change the way they think about and consume food" is a voluntary action. The whole point of a disorder is it has become involuntary, that's why people ask for, or end up in hospital needing help.

I've usually struggled to grasp what BED advocates were getting at, the coinage contains different cross currents of hunger and other metabolic dysfunction. The addiction folk don't get it, for them-eating=thinking. They want to fit it into their model. "...they think of food in addictive terms."  "They’re obsessed with food..." Obsessed with food is those using the diet-weight hypothesis;

...unusual relationship with food. ...they think about food...they gorge on food... ...change the way they think about and consume food. ...a great deal of food.. ...hidden foods and/or food wrappers. ...unaware of the smell or the taste of the foods... 

That's the first 6-7 paragraphs, excluding all references to eat, eating and binge. 

Food. Food, food, food, food, food, food, ........................foooooood. Food. Dammit. Foooooood. Once you step back from all this and you really begin to feel the senseless obsessiveness of it all.

From BED advocates descriptions, I'd realised it's probably an effect of chronic calorie restriction dieting. As I said, there is no yo-yo dieting, dieting is the yo-yo. If it takes at all, this heightened hunger is one reason why it doesn't.  

I had to reserve judgement in case I was missing something. They also vigorously denied this link.

Since many binge eaters restrict food intake during the day and binge at night, the goal is to get them to eat three meals a day and a snack.

Those who treat eating disorders use duress and pressure to get some restoration of a person's hunger response. Getting someone to eat three meals a day is hardly that. It's more like someone who hasn't been eating properly.

Despite "diet culture" etc., people still cannot grasp that calorie restriction dieting is inherently unbalanced. Including if not especially people who should know better by now. This may come as a surprise given the insistence that "weight loss" is an absolute no-no due to continued conflation of that with cal res dieting. 

Seems (dieting induced) weight loss is totally bad, but dieting itself can be good, so much so, that this gets in the way of perceiving the unbalancing effects of dieting. "Good dieting" is when your body overcomes the assault, not the the nature of the assault itself.

If you smoked furiously for a few years, stopped and your body did not succumb to any related probs later. That's not "good smoking" that's your body's operations standing up to that pressure. As they are designed to do but cannot in every instance.

I've put it out there that the "obesity diagnosis" is not compatible with mental health, it is an assault on it, not the "drug addiction movement" [no such thing]. Freudian slippage on "fat acceptance movement" there. Addicts do not reverse their dependence, they go through withdrawal, that doesn't demand much transferable skill.

This sort of linking of fatness to various pathologies seeks to use your acceptance of terms supposedly embedded in our psyche. Usually to do with finessing professional failures as the way its supposed to be, up to an including letting people die -yes, what Michael Buerk said. 

Whether or not one can be fully cured of binge eating depends on one’s definition of “cured.” 

That'd be normal hunger function, which is of course not their aim because they're not charged with solving anything. What they've forgotten is the current targets of their theatre are. If something is "remarkably responsive to treatment.." treatment which consists of voluntary action of stopping cal res dieting and the pathologising of yourself and your body-should fully 'cure' it.

Treatment often begins with efforts to recognize distorted, all-or-nothing thinking .....

Like;

Normal people don’t consume 4,500 calories worth of food in one sitting, or order takeout for four when dining alone. 

Yeah they do, it's the function, not the person. See how journalist generalised from the specific, typical all or nothing thinking, like 'obesity', which because someone else feels some way about your size, the whole of you must be defined by that feeling.

Starvation: "Not Too Arduous", says Jesting Boffin

With narrow ideology holding all in its rictus grip, the only direction is round and round the same circle. The slimming industry has been routinely propped up, supported and rescued by medics and scientists etc., connected with the 'obesity' industry. Over the decades, doctors have routinely sent their patients to slimming companies, "They're the experts".

Doctors have been behind virtually every kind of diet there is. Name any form of dieting; low-fat, low carb, whole grain, high protein, partial or actual fasting, there's a doctor selling it. With the recent announcement of a slimming industry mainstay, weight watchers, moving away from at least, associating loudly with starvation induced weight loss.

Weight Watchers will now be known as “WW.” The 55-year-old company* just announced that it is rebranding to focus more on overall health. Its new tagline: “Wellness that works.” 

It's about time for the usual suspects to stage an intervention to stop the starvation punishment from becoming recherche. "NHS should prescribe crash diet replacing meals with shakes and nutrition bars to tackle obesity, scientists say", by "prescription", they mean, tell you-you are doing all the work. They are doing nothing.

Partnership with commercial weight loss firms should be extended nationwide to allow GPs to prescribe, scientists add

They don't routinely "prescribe" (very low calorie) VLCD liquid diets due to past experience "Liquid Protein Mayhem", From July 14 1978, an abstract;

...Singh et al (p 115) and Brown et al (p 120) report a total of three deaths of female patients who had adhered faithfully to a liquid protein diet (providing about 300 kcal/day in the form of protein hydrolysate) for five to six months. The immediate cause of death in every case was refractory ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. A fourth patient experienced repeated episodes of ventricular tachycardia, but, after a stormy course, her condition was controlled with phenytoin sodium. The patient subsequently recovered. The ECGs of all four patients showed gross abnormalities of repolarization characterized by prominent U waves and QT_c prolongation. All of the patients were relatively young women aged 27 to 35 years, and, except for their obesity, all had been in good health before undergoing supplemented fasting. 

Do note "had been in good health". That's being written out of reality so harms done by "starvation induced weight loss" can be filed under "obesity-related"-strictly speaking that isn't wrong, it is related to a construct and its morbid crusade.  It shows even this dubious area has degenerated under the duress of trying to enforce starvation as some kind of end in itself.

Dieting used to be all about the low cal. Folks tended to lose larger amounts of weight than in more recent years-if you insist on starving off weight, the closer to starvation dying and death, the better the thinning.

It [VCLD] is not an easy diet to follow. Apart from feeling hungry and low on energy, other side effects can include: dry mouth constipation or diarrhoea, headache, dizziness, cramps, hair thinning

Too much association with destruction and death was doing for the slimming industry, as well as evident failure of the starvation strategy, until doctors stepped in with "health". A healthy diet produced health, window-dressing dieting away from its morbidity [a proper use of that term]. This lending of medical/science legitimacy saved the on its arse grift from a descent into oblivion.

It meant people stopped losing the amounts of weight as before.

Eating shakes, soups and meal replacement bars for three meals a day helped obese patients lose nearly four times as much weight as those told to eat healthily and cut calories, a study has found. Oxford University researchers have reported “total meal replacement” diets, which restrict participants to just 810 calories per day for eight weeks, safely enabled more patients to lose more weight – and keep it off for a year with diet support.

These are the wrong wrong academics/researchers/scientists, obviously. We need ones who are actually interested in finding out how we can use our body's own abilities to regulate its own mass. So we are no longer at the mercy of this increasingly institutionalised iatrogenesis.

I hope this helps to illustrate why until this area is done and dusted, this cycle will continue, with or without self-acceptance. That is a start, a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's an attempt to begin to reverse damage done by this crusade, but it is not enough. Society needs closure and that will only come with finding out how to use our bodies abilities properly. There is nothing wrong with that and there never has been.

The survey results fly in the face of long standing criticism of “crash dieting”, amid fears it can lead to a yo-yo effect where people lose weight but immediately put it back on.

Seeing as professionals are happy to mutilate people into perma-starvation, the acceptance of that's rehabilitating starvation without mutilation.

.....the Oxford University report’s authors argue there is ample evidence such regimes can help combat a growing obesity crisis which is costing the health service billions of pounds to treat complications such as type 2 diabetes

The current message is still out there though. "Fitness guru Joe Wicks cautions against 'beach body' crash diets"

Social media health pro Joe Wicks has urged people to stay healthy and avoid “beach body” crash diets in the lead-up to the summer holidays.

It'll be interesting to see how people like Wicks incorporate this into their spiel. Probably the usual, one law for the subjects another for the objects. 

Professor Paul Aveyard, a co-author of the paper, said: “This study shows that GP referral to a total diet replacement programme in the community is an effective intervention which GPs can confidently recommend, knowing that it leads to sustainable weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease and diabetes.”

What "intervention"? This is an imposition,  a sentence, a punishment. The targets have to endure this, the people starving them get paid.

After 12 months, the participants had lost an average 10.7kg. That compared to an average weight loss of 3.5kg for those who received their GP’s standard weight loss programme, including advice and support from a nurse and written information.

In other words, be confident docs, you now have the go-ahead, sorry. That's what 'studies' are used for nowadays.

Independent experts said it was striking virtually all participants stayed on the programme for the entire 12 months, and suggested sticking with meal replacement is not too arduous.

Independent of what? When there's only one ideology, there's only one way of thinking, unless we're talking about such as; "Marco Rubio condemns 'weirdo Salt Bae' after Venezuela president Nicolas Maduro dines at his restaurant"

Incident sparks outrage among Venezuelans, millions of whom struggle to eat three meals a day.“He is actually the overweight dictator of a nation where 30% of the people eat only once a day & infants are suffering from malnutrition.” Footage showed Mr Maduro dining on expensive steak at the Istanbul restaurant during a stop-off returning from a visit to China, drawing furore back home where millions struggle to get enough to eat and red meat is a rare luxury. Almost two-thirds of Venezuelans surveyed in a university study published in February said they had lost on average 11kg in body weight last year. 

Not too arduous**, leading to sustained weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease, say scientists. How much has Venezuela's diabetes risk fallen by?

*  predates the "obesity crisis" yet somehow managed not to prevent it.
** I'd pay money to see & hear them tell Maduro's critics this.

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.

Ministering to Bodies does not Equal Ownership of People

A few weeks ago a certain health authority announced that it will breathalyse smokers to make sure they've stopped smoking for 8 weeks before they can be referred for assessment for "non-urgent surgery".

They said the changes were being brought in after 85% of people who responded to a public consultation agreed that smokers should be required to quit before being referred. 

This transparent attempt at buck passing shows the architects of this know they are in the wrong, they don't want to own it. Instead they try to stick it on the usual targets, the public.

Smoking is a habit. It is not addictive, it's is not even particularly faddictive-folks still woefully underestimate the power of the human mind in real life.

Smoking has never been more self-selecting than it is today, so if anyone wants to truly make further inroads into the numbers remaining, they need to come up with techniques that actually work for those who smoke and resist urges to indulge in power games expressions punitive fee fees or crackpot vigilante justice.

To use that brilliant-as-it-is-skewif expression, check the optics: anti-smoking professionals targeting people for; reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette, by reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics.

If phoned in anti-ism equalled expertise in the formation and cessation of habits, that wouldn't have happened now would it?

If health professionals and bureaucrats wish to truly engage in public health, they need to engage with healthy behaviours to bring about that end. They can do their; "Bad for you, bad for you act, in an emergency, in the initial stages of any real or perceived health crisis- if they've not thought of anything better. After the initial loosely aligned are shaken off though, they'd better put some effort into how to actually alter what compelling about what they're complaining about.

With real demonstrations of efficacy, that can be repeated, not assertion or pseudo-science statistically massaged 'studies', or other so called "evidence-based" hocus-poci. No stupid chewing gum or horrible-as-they-are ineffectual drugs "support" either. If you are criticising using material things, why is that all you've got? If you think the answer to problems is things, what are you looking down your nose at?

Why aren't you more concerned about how to alter the behaviour and performance of your mind/body, using your mind/body? That is a real anti-thesis of habitual consumption of material objects.

If that sounds like a tall order, that's the sort of feeling you invoke in your targets.

In the past Public health was honourable and progressive. It improved society and was led by knowledge such as an understanding of the true value of hygiene and of the nature and transmission of disease.

Public health must again be about raising the health of the populace, not a pretext to assaulting mental health, inducing self hatred, creating social/moral hierarchies, or a cover for weird politics/ morality social engineering and the vaunting of one's own personal hatreds. 

Incidentally, no cure-all but smokers or trying to be ex-smokers should consider making a practise of yogic style or other breathing exercises. Even that famous warm up stretch where you take deep breaths as you raise your arms from your sides into the air- really open your chest [it's famous but I can't find a link.] And when you lower your arms whilst exhaling, really empty your lungs-without strain- and pause before taking another breath.

This won't suit everyone but it's worth a try. If your body knows its going to get some invigorating breaths, that might weaken that aspect of the attraction of fags, just don't bring that to smoking!

I can hardly finish without mentioning;

The CCGs also require obese patients to reduce their weight by 10% over nine months or reduce their BMI (body mass index) to less than 30, whichever is greater, before being referred for non-urgent surgery.

Again, whomever wrote; "reduce their weight" knows the only means made available for that-CRIWL is harmful and doesn't work. Euphemise away, you are not even fooling yourselves. Effectively this is seeking to force people to starve off weight against their will. It's seeking to mandate the ceaseless repetition of self harm and self abuse.  

Let's refresh on medical ethics;

• Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
• Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
• Non-maleficence – to not be the cause of harm. Also, "Utility" - to promote more good than harm
• Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality). (Iustitia.)

That's a fail on all four and more.

Fat people have taken the initiative, we have done the dieting, that's how we know the results are not satisfactory to anyone.

Patronising nonsense about how people need 'support' to impersonate anorexia, be damned, this is a medical dispute.

There's an obvious vacancy here for science that seeks only to properly understand and manipulate metabolic function. That doesn't concentrate on pointless categorising of people by weight as if being above or below their arbitrary lines makes your bodily functions unrelated to each other.

Look at what that has produced. 

If medical professionals et al want to continue their blocking of real science that actually works, and promotion of pseudo-science that doesn't, they need to explain their motivation for this. They need to become accountable for the outcome.

Either way, doctors don't own fat or any other people. They can't tell us black is white and white is black or try to press us to support their science fiction.

I repeat, fat people have always wanted to slim, we have been prevented by the lack of proper method. Medics et al can only continue to bypass that for so long.

"Obesity scientists" as others choose the area of knowledge they wish to pursue, which is their right. That doesn't co-incide with the needs of those they treat as their personal quarry. No-one signed up to be their puppets, we signed on for altering weight/metabolic function in good faith. That has not been provided and is not on offer so that is that.

Neither they nor medics nor society is owed anything by fat people. We've done what we can with what we've been given.

Nor for the record, is mutilation of the stomach any more a viable option than smoking yourself slim.

Crisis of Meaning

Addiction is the development of a physical dependence on various kinds of drugs, more typically opiate drugs. It happens in essence because establishing an outer supply of opiates tends to interfere with the level of production of opiate-like or opioid substances in our bodies.

The requisite sign of addiction is withdrawal-which is just the body in a state of opioid/pleasure chemical deficit before it is able to adjust the level of production back toward a normal range. When that occurs, the acute stage of withdrawal completes itself. 

Withdrawal is not a syndrome, it is the direct symptom of a body's physical dependence on an outer supply of opioids. "Post withdrawal" is injury from damage inflicted before and during addiction, that ends when those injuries heal sufficiently.

A syndrome by the way is a collection of related symptoms that have no recognised or definite source or cause. "Cravings" are the body craving restortion of normal levels of (pleasure) chemical function. 

Addiction is a bit like a process of going from a wholly inner supply, to less of that topped up by an outer supply. When you stop "topping" you enter withdrawal, 'recovery' is when the body goes back toward prior production levels. 

Some make a distinction between physical dependence and addiction, I don't per se.

Though there might have been a meaningful distinction once. There's a case for physical dependence from necessary use and addiction from non-necessary use of drugs. Because the former is likely to have its own challenges that aren't always the same as those who don't need to take medication for an original or underlying physical ailment.

The point of explaining this yet again is a feature of the current US opioid crisis is that people apparently didn't know opioids are inherently addicitve due to the nature of human biochemistry;

From 1996 to 2001, American drug giant Purdue Pharma held more than 40 national “pain management symposia” at picturesque locations, hosting thousands of American doctors, nurses and pharmacists. The healthcare professionals had been specially invited, whisked to the conferences to be drilled on promotional material about the firm’s new star drug, OxyContin, and recruited as advocates, the US government later documented.

Don't doubt similar game isn't being played out with the 'obesity' cult, for "pain management" read "weight management." This quack cult is hell bent on creating a drug and surgery crises in the plural, in fat people, if we are dumb enough to allow them to have their way, again.

A bulletin from the American Public Health Association in 2009, reviewing the rise of prescription opioids, is titled “The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy”. The document also asserted that Purdue had played down the risks of addiction.

"Played down the risks of addiction", um-hum, like playing down the risks of "stomach reduction surgery" and various prescription drug-abuse. That sort of thing can only make an impact if people no longer get what's being talked about, in this case, addiction.  

Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.

That's from the American Society of Addictive Medicine, playing the current trick of describing things in ways that obscures what is really being talked about. Does this definition help you to understand non-addictive opioid is chemically implausible? Do you understand it? Does it even make sense?

If I wanted to know why exactly people got stuck on OxyContin and the like, how would "primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry" help? Its agenda is concerned with selling addiction as a disease, rather than education. Note the same employ of phoney 'disease' in the area of weight.

This opioid crisis/crises has many factors, but ultimately a basic grasp of what addiction really is, without the more recent insistence on collapsing neural compulsions/ neuroses and any old undesired or troublesome habit into "addiction" would have enabled people to get a clearer view of dubious promise such as non-addictive opioids. 

 Democracy Now on Oxycontin with Christopher Glazek

Even the deepest desire for denial can fail under the surer gaze of knowing better.

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.

What it is, is what it is

Tuppence-looking contraption Purge Assist has popped up this side of the pond cue predictable stupid.

The usual clueless double-think as people proclaim- "This is not the answer!" and pompously intone- "This is a symptom of quick fixism", seemingly unable to grasp dieting is a quack fix that turned into an open-ended fail due to the neurotic rejection of that fact. The latter is of course played off as long term commitment.

It's enough to make you puke.

Then there's the straw set up of this as an argument between willpower versus dietary indoctrination. [In what way does "eduction" alter the functioning of your metabolism?] The dim-wit pretension of, "Don't remove energy, you've got to find the cause of 'overeating'". Really? What happens if you don't Nancy Drew?

There's a "We've got to do something, so this is okay", pointing to the legacy of science-blockingand even as the powerful motivator of people's desperation and even a "This demonises food." Referencing CRIWL's attack on hunger. 

After that comes the eating disorders fraternity, terrified their citadel of flummery may be upset by the sunlight of unmanaged fact,

Dr Richard Sly, the medical advisor at the B-Eat eating disorder charity meanwhile warns that comparing the procedure to bulimia in an unhelpful stance.

It's not "comparison" it's observation. Voiding the contents of the stomach before food is fully digested is the purging part of bulimia nervosa. Hence purging with exercise is called exercise bulimia.

Like anorexia and other eating disorders, bulimia is a serious mental illness with physical manifestations.

They've also been the prescription for fat people for the last four decades, how long is it going to take the ED fraternity/sorority to absorb this? You don't own these and you cannot (any longer) get away with preventing people from observing fact. 

In and of itself, the equipment does not amount to medical bulimia, he says. On the contrary, the AspireAssist is a highly medicalised process.

The equipment is what is used to induce bulimia. Instead of sticking your finger down your throat, et al. It takes another direction to achieve the same ends, it is bulimia. If you don't like that, be sure to mention that to 'obesity' wallahs.

Whether bulimia is 'medicalised' or not makes no difference to what it is. Terms mean what they mean, not what you associate with them.

This would change if the person was using it to cope with psychological distress, he argues.

It's worth pointing out that the main means of trying to force fat people into proto-anorexia has been "psychological distress" and the threat of it. The extremes to which people will go to lose weight or merely avoid gain are testament to the distress involved.


Slim people are terribly ashamed of being seen to be too invested in calorie restriction dieting. Consider what it means for them to insist this should be what our lives should revolve around. 

Fat Handbags Have Already been Stopped

Continuing on from yesterday's post and the noteworthy attempt of 'obesity' promoters to decry any possibility of blocking a cell that has already been blocked. Looking back at research indicating the maturation process of our fat handbag adipose cells, can be stimulated to completion by a hormone called Adamts1.

Sentiments expressed by Dr. Brian Feldman-part of the research team concerned-about the purported implausibility of slowing fatty tissue genesis was backed up and emphasised by an NHS website,

The coverage by the Mail Online was generally accurate, highlighting the important fact that this research has not necessarily identified a target for anti-obesity treatment options.

"The important fact" eh? Why would that be either? Important to whom? It's not even about expectation management. If you say, eventually it seems like they'll be a means of stopping adipose tissue from increasing, you can go on to say, but not for a while yet if you want.

It's the enthusiasm for shutting that avenue down that is a red light.

If one steps back from puberty, it could be seen purely as an increase body mass. In healthy cells; bone, muscle and FAT [etc.,]. By dint of that, blocking or slowing puberty effectively does the same for adipose as part of that repression,

Initiating the treatment early for a child who experiences gender dysphoria has greatest effect; the body of the patient is less developed and later, the need for surgery such as mastectomy or “reduction thyroid chondroplasty and voice modification therapy” is avoided.

Avoid mastectomy? Okay, this is the brotherhood of wikistan, I haven't looked further into it yet, still, I think we can confidently state the human breast has fatty tissue.

Puberty blockers supposedly work by suppressing the release of chemicals that launch the process of puberty into effect. They are released from the pituitary gland. Incidentally, one of these hormones is called "follicle-stimulating hormone" or (FSH), yes, that relates to the troublesome, poly-cystic ovary, follicles. This could go to explain why PCOS can now seemingly be diagnosed without the presence of challenging follicles.

I'm not here to recommend nor decry puberty-blocking, initially a treatment for precocious puberty. This is really about being told what isn't supposed to be possible or likely, when it has already happened however imperfectly.

Even if it hadn't, it would hardly be an outlandish possibility to be able to modify the extent/speed of one cells proliferation, given the body already does this. If you've ever dieted for any period, you'll know that it can speed up your body's capacity to gain weight like no-ones business. How can that happen if gain is all one speed?

And where you can slow, you can look to stop, or at least slow even further. So if any 'obesity' wallahs are struggling with this concept, why don't they mosey on over to those working in the area of arresting puberty and ask them for a clue?

It slightly recalls the suggestion that "weight loss" is supposed to be hard, when the body already goes down (and up) in weight, daily, with consummate ease. One might humbly imagine attempts to figure out the ways it manages this impossibility/immorality/unlifestyle generated action. Only for that also to be mysterious improbable.

As I've repeatedly stressed (oops), "obesity science" doesn't actually have to reverse weight. It can merely settle for subduing replication of cells. The spluttering response...

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

...when confronted with this notion fails to grasp-stopping a person's weight/fat mass where it is. Which is the norm for most people fat to thin alike, it's homoeostasis, all you're doing is seeking to help that along. When it comes to blocking fat, of course we are talking about the activity that promotes its genesis /proliferation.

We are talking here about outliers who are enduring aggressive symptoms that include/lead to swift unending gain. 

And blocking or suppressing adipose cells can equally have an affect on other metabolic features including hunger and appetite. Because fat cells are "metabolically active" sending as well as receiving messages.

You may be asking why in the midst of a supposed adipocalypse of urgent proportions, is there this continual urge to deny possibility of the obvious target to save us from this impending hellacious fate? In favour of such cutting the sugar in soft drinks.....no less....

Middle Class People-Have Your Long Overdue Examination of Your Own Drug Use Now Please

Ludicrous attempt at talking up the pretence of a gigantic plot by sinister agents of industrial food to addict the US, no the worldwide populace to 'sugar' in a sort of repeat of the Chinese Opium wars, except without the imperialism, bloodshed, or opiate drugs.

The b'stards!!!

And do you know what else they've probably done too? Yes, they've prevented anyone from coming up with a viable model of human metabolic function. These dastardly biscuit peddlers have made off with our ambition nay our ability to find ways to adjust our own bodily function.

Bring it back right now, cake wallahs*?!*

It's all too horrifying. I daren't look........but I must. For you dear reader, I'm prepared to sacrifice moi-meme.

"Put down the donut: When Americans became hooked on sugar instead of natural fat, obesity balloned," by someone called Michael Joseph." Originally printed at AlterNet,

AlterNet’s aim is to inspire action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, health care issues, and more

You have to wonder who exactly is behind these efforts and why such as AlterNet with their stated aims of giving voice to alternative sources of information- are keen to give this a platform. Mickey's breathless page shows what he's about, claiming his opinings are "backed by the latest science" ah if ever such a mighty term were not so debased as science is right now.

That headline; "When Americans became hooked on sugar instead of natural fat, obesity balloned". Makes no real sense and has history backwards. MJ says as much himself "As we replaced natural sources of fat for sugar." That's the as low as low-fat diet, unnatural.

Low-fat diets were heavily (yes) promoted by the usual suspects; "obesity science," doctors, public health bureaucrats, busy body quangocrats, the meejah.

Heavily.

There might be a story around how this conclusion was arrived at-fat makes you fat and causes heart attacks. We were told that fat sticks to the insides of your cardiac vessels, leading them to infarct and such. Now we're told similar happens due to sugar. Back in the day it was refined starch.

Do people really still believe so fervently that diet is the key here? Really? Because I would have thought it was obvious that we have all just been chasing our tails on that one. The idea of low sugar/low carb is high-protein repackaged again and again. Diet is not a starting point. It's part of a process. It's what controls the process that is key to improving function and preserving, improving or repairing health.

Again I ask, why can't we just stop dodging that? What's the problem? That is the real story here. That is the real way we have all been sold out. Who's behind that? What do they want? What are their aims?

Dr David Katz said more recently that his expectation in promoting low-fat diets was that people would eat lots of vegetables, fruit and grains, emphasis on the latter-despite what he's implying now. In those days no one would dream of telling people to live on hundreds of portions of veg. No-one would have dreamt of the starvation calorie counts people are expected to live on permanently. Only when you were going on a crash diet.

It was clear early on that people wouldn't just drop the foods they liked to eat on the say-so of the likes of him. The idea of having your diet intimately dictated to as a matter of course-not say on a diet would have seemed laughable to most people. We have come to accept the idea that people should tell us how to eat and increasingly how to live. [Gives a clue of the motive behind all this.] In the meantime companies replaced in part with sugar, in order to brand foods "low-fat".

Its fair to point out this is a-letter rather than a spirit of the law-type finagle but that's how the food business attempted to marry irreconcilables with its profit motive. Were they expected to go into voluntary liquidation?

Any fault with current sugar overload lies squarely with those who peddle low-fat diets as a must. Their meddling constantly blows up in other people's faces. The most obvious being the lack of any real control people have other making adjustments to the way their bodies are using energy.

Now they and/or others are entering a new phase of their theatre of the absurd, pretending big biz acted nefariously to faddict people to sugar [what for?] The article recognises the weakness of that point though by citing your morning orange juice, whether concentrate based or freshly squeezed by your own hand, it contains a lot of sugar. More at times than their supposed bete noir-fizzy drinks (should include beer and wine). 

No more of any of that for you. That's realistic isn't it?

Underneath the headless back fat(ty) photo used-which may not be down to Joseph is this caption;

International diabetes organizations are calling for weight-loss surgery to become a more routine treatment option for diabetes, even for some patients who are only mildly obese. Obesity and Type 2 diabetes are a deadly pair, and numerous studies show stomach-shrinking operations can dramatically improve diabetes.

That's right, an article on the perils of doughnuts is promoting the cutting out of healthy functioning organs, for the purposes of "stomach shrinking". Repeat; the stomach is a muscular organ.

It is a muscular, highly vascular bag-shaped organ that is distensible and may take varying shapes, depending on the build and posture of the person and the state of fullness of the organ (see the image below).

Shrinking is a natural action of muscle, partial or full amputation isn't required for that.

As for diabetes charities, how dare they recommend this reckless mutilation, have they pushed for better investigation, or questioned the lack of progress in this area? There was a time when charities where the voice of reason or kept out when they had nothing useful to say. Now they are clearly becoming infested with agitants spreading the message of brutalising bodies with hack-happy-quackery.

Unfortunately, the American (and worldwide) public are experiencing the consequences. As we replaced natural sources of fat for sugar (and excess carbohydrate in general), soaring rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other conditions of the metabolic syndrome soon followed.

In real terms cardiovascular health has improved in the West as societal weight gain has progressed-whether health lovers like that or not. As for "metabolic syndrome", the clue is in the name. It might benefit most from the ability to alter the way metabolism is functioning. More experimentation of a different kind is where we need to go. Get off the drugs or surgery tip.

That will also be required to tackle type 2 diabetes in a more effective manner. Not to mention weight for those who need or want it and mental health problems, up to and including eating/hunger disorders.

Alternet shows a predictable profile of bourgeoisie self-repression about their love of drugs, poking through the hole torn by their bigotry and fat phobia. "We're all being used: No, it's not immoral to use illegal drugs." Um yeah it is.

I've queried this myself in the past. How can people allow themselves to be complicit in the deaths of so many poor oppressed people in the Americas, just in order to get high? At the same time as casting fatness as evidence of immorality or addiction then coming down on people like a ton of maggot infested shit. Can they not see that's a description and judgement of their own behaviour? It's not how I feel about it, its about how they feel about it, no matter how obscure it is from them.

This time the point is made from the horses mouth, a Mexican business graduate [NYT link].

I was born and raised in a midsize town in northern Mexico. As a child, I biked and skated in the streets. But these days, kids aren’t allowed to play outside. Everyone has a heartbreaking story of how the drug trade has damaged his life.

Folks prefer to talk about Mexican 'obesity' without too much mention of the effect of the drug wars tragedy and restraining of youthful impulses to move around. Another example of the way fatigue with serious structural problems migrates to 'obesity' which becomes a proxy for fixing life. I remember asking a fat phobe why he didn't know the health "costs" of paedophilia. He said; "We can stop obesity".

Stopping 'obesity' is like a living fable for the idea of being able to stop wrongs. There's an element of desperation about the need for us to believe we can and practise that on something. To others it feels like a safe space for our ability to right wrongs. The need to win at something simple is more valuable to others than any sense of what its doing to those its aimed at.

Note the way not bothering with coke is not seen as a reasonable ask. Instead of thinking about the damage Mario Berlanga speaks about firsthand, we're informed actually, this isn't about the blood in coke, its about the illegality of the drugs. You know they're illegal, so don't take them in the first place. If you do, own that. If you can't do either, don't use fat people to explore your repressed shame, it gives the game away that you know the score (lit.)

Violence — whether among cartels, or between cartels and government forces — plagues cities along drug trafficking routes. Shops and restaurants shut their doors, employees are laid off. Cartel members routinely steal cars at gunpoint. They take over houses and factories for shelter and fire automatic weapons in public spaces. My relatives have been forced to drop to the ground at home and at the supermarket to avoid being shot.

Guessing its not a comfort to know someone's feeling better from all this.

Food as drugs, eating only for pleasure, hunger is addiction is displacement. Its the pressing through the psyche that which is being heavily repressed.

So spare us your tedious symptomatic macro-nutrient paranoia. The only thing that has been hijacked is science-by pseudoscience. Increasingly, people are seeing that all too well.

Locus of Control

There are many arguments I thought fat phobes would never have the effrontery to try and make. One is asserting that fat people who tell the truth about CRIWL have an outer locus of control. Most think of us this way its fair to say.

Locus of control refers to where you tend to see control over you and your life laying. Having an outer locus of control means you are more fatalistic, you feel controlled/affected by people or events outside yourself.

Having an inner locus of control means you feel you are mainly the arbiter of your own life. The latter is supposed to show a better sense of personal responsibility. It's supposed to be a sign of a healthier personality.

I was reminded of l of c when the other day a woman spoke about her attempts to lose weight to conceive a baby; dietician, gym, psychologist, etc., CRIWL has always been sold as "personal responsibility"-inner locus of control.

And though this relied solely on effort from her, the real control is outside. Meaning she had an inner locus of control seeing it correctly as up to her, but the actual control is outside her. There should in fact be a match. The real locus of control should be inside too. This sums up what I've been advocating all this time.

Believing, indeed, knowing that your weight should be alterable by you isn't the problem, lack of the right means and tools to do it is. That's the ultimate distinction here. Forget what anyone else says, whether fat phobe or fat activist. The capacity is there, the willingness from fat people has always been there. It is the means that has been denied and is still being denied. In favour of control from outside. Whilst posing as the inner failure of people.

I finally managed to get through enough of the thick smoke of pro-anorexia spiel enough to identify a potentially shared symptom of all eating/hunger disorders-that sorts it out from an almost. When hunger function passes either too others-usually anorexia, or to ones conscious mind.

I'm not talking about concern with ingredient sourcing or meal preparation, I mean the actual urge to eat is no longer internal but has passed into significantly external or conscious.

Typically, anorexics reach a stage where everyone around them is acting as their hunger. As its replacement. Asking them if they want to eat- that's hunger. Offering them certain prized foods or stuff they might like-that's appetite.

You can see CRIWL/WLD matches that symptom exactly. Except in this case, dieting/CRIWL relies on seeking to pass your hunger function from physiology, to psychology. To the conscious mind.

It is one of the features of its inherent malfunction, things such as calorie counting, weighing food seek to teach this symptom. With hunger/eating disorders, that's more likely to be an unintended consequence.

Toytown Emperors

Shaw Sommers, a bariatric surgeon *eyebrow raise* has taken an opportunity to drum up some coin for his organ removal business. The occasion is an announcement by an NHS overseeing body called a CCG-Clinical Commissioning Group, that they wish to delay elective surgeries for those with a body mass of 30 or above.

The Vale of York to be precise has decided to put fat/ter people on probation for a year or however long it takes them to starve off 10% of their body mass-whichever period comes around first. No reports on what will happen to their organ amputation provision.

The excuse for this obvious attempt to leverage pain to bully people into starvation induced weight loss is excused as the; "best way of achieving maximum value from the limited resources available”. Oh go on Vale of York, we so believe you!

Sommers is quoted as saying this is like discriminating on the basis of their colour or religious persuasion, as wait for it, "obesity is an illness". We all know that's false, the AMA openly they were saying that to get paid.

This is nothing like racism. The discrimination is that anybody no matter their weight has to lose it via a pathological and ineffective means the body is designed to reject. This isn't acknowledged. Worse still it disregards patient consent, which is fundamental to the practise of medicine. 

Even if you are one of those invested in delusion about the efficacy of calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL, you've still got the fact that much injury and illness is just as much the "fault" of the individual as fat is supposed to be, especially if you apply the same standard of judgement as used for 'obesity'. 

Whether its people injuring themselves to people having accidents-one that springs to mind was a wheelchair user who injured several of her friends, doing lasting damage and ended in being a quadriplegic through their own careless driving.

Self inflicted is an irrelevant concept in medicine. Or it was until 'obesity' became a verbal tic.

The urge toward deserving and undeserving unwell is as bigger bunk as is possible to imagine. Things you wouldn't dream of require far less effort to manage or even resolve than fighting your body's endless defences against calorie restriction. It would, will be a surrprise to us as biology hacks get more sophisticated, just how much we can do for ourselves.

The estimate amount of pscycho somatic illness would shock people.

That's the real discrimination against fat people and in this case smokers two very easy targets. It just so happens that both have vociferous cults aimed at them. Weight is especially bad. I don't wish to throw smokers under the bus, but there is no comparison between not lighting up and inhaling tubers of tobacco and fighting your body's survival instincts. Though I daresay many of them wouldn't see it that way.

CCG's are;

Led by an elected Governing Body made up of GPs, other clinicians including a nurse and a secondary care consultant, and lay members;

Um hum.

In keeping with that Summers isn't even against this punishment fandango, oh heavens to Murgatroyd no;

Shaw Somers, a bariatric surgeon from Portsmouth, said the move was a logical step and could save money, but amounted to discrimination because obesity was an illness.

A "logical step" huh? So would using racial religious discrimination to ration medical treatment be "logical" then? That would make the medical principle of treatment according to need, "illogical." Yet, no other criterion would appear to make more sense.

Then comes the laughable shilling,

“Just saying you can’t have surgery and there is no access to alternative treatments really doesn’t help anyone.”

"Alternative treatments" is reference to his bowdlerising chop socky or some other ghastly item on the iatrogenic 'obesity' repertoire. Neither alternative nor treatment. The sympathy pose is big right now with the 'obesity' promoters.

Sadly for them, cutting out people's organs isn't remotely sympathetic at all.

There's no question something has gone badly awry with certain elements of the medical profession's psyche. A feeling has grown that any action they may disapprove of-real or imagined-undoes their hard work and those who do deserve to be left in agony or death - serve them right. 

They consider medical training to have given them the power of life or death over others.

I personally couldn't care less. I'd just wish to remind them their practise is a monopoly. That fact has served them very well. It is over the moment they consider themselves too grand to treat anyone on the basis of their irrelevant prejudice.

Update: Vale of York is backpeddling;

Major surgery poses much higher risks for severely overweight patients who smoke. So local GP-led clinical commissioning groups are entirely right to ensure these patients first get support to lose weight and try and stop smoking before their hip or knee operation.

"Severely overweight patients who smoke" Really V of Y? You said BMI 30 + and smokers, don't try and fib, its in writing.

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. 

Inside Every (Desperate) Person is a Fat phobe Waiting for Release

Most people lead lives of quiet desperation. So it's hardly surprising that inside all of us is a cowardly bully or bigot (often both) waiting to be liberated. In this instance, by permission of the white coat mafia. From scientists and medics who hold our lives in their hands (only because many of them just won't let go). To the head docs who tell us what and how to think and about how we feel and think, along with how to interpret whatever's left in our minds.

When you stop either auto fat phobia or the fat hatred you have for others, it usually has numerous effects-which I'd like people to discover for themselves. But I would challenge anyone, fat to thin alike to simply stop hating fatness and/or fat people-the latter is so nonsensical when you think about it. Imagine "hating" slim people(?!) It's effectively misanthropy, which means it is also self hatred.

Really bite the bullet and root this out. Systematically.

It has been said by many that fat phobia does not signal self esteem. I'd be more direct and humbly suggest that it is often a marker of low mood or even depression. And that if you stop fat phobing, you will take strain off your mood. Bring back some lost energy and that is often key to neurosis of all kinds, depression and anxiety especially.

If you excise it as completely from your mind and its functions as you can, you'll feel better not simply about yourself, you'll feel better about everything. I'd avoid setting out to "love" fat. That is, positively fetishizing fat. That often brings its own problems. It can and does sit side by side, with a virtually unchecked loathing of fatness/fat/fat people.

Its important that you stick to getting rid of any ill feeling, any over-excitation about fatness, fat and people in any aspect. Think more of a kind of acquiring of a neutral stance. Concentrate on the aim of changing the way you react emotionally and mentally to fat. Quiet your nervous system right down when you think of it, see it or hear it mentioned.

Go further than you think you need to. Fat phobia can be peskily hard to spot, until you have gotten rid of a certain amount-when more hidden depths of prejudice, surface. Often after a gap or high point of reversal. That is probably true of a lot of most, if not all prejudice.

Fat phobia is a mental drag.

Fat phobia has costs.

Do the experiment on yourself and make up your own mind.

Georgia Davis's Repeat Pause Repeat Ordeals

I'd wondered what was going to happen to Georgia Davis after she reappeared in the news a couple of years ago. The home she shared with her family was partially dismantled for her to be removed and taken to hospital to treat an infection.

She's surfaced again sadly for the same reason. Having recently become bedridden with water retention, an infection followed on from that. A pretty large logistical operation was set in motion, including a crane, to lift her from her home into a specially modified ambulance to take her to hospital for treatment. Not sure why she couldn't be treated at home or why so many police seemed to be involved.

That has predictably garnered the headlines. The usual phoned in cries of "self-inflicted" abound, though I detect signs this is starting to ring rather hollow. For no-one with a properly functioning brain can fail to see that there's something profoundly wrong when for instance, a person can gain 30st/420lbs/190kg in three years. Time and again cases stand out, especially when this occurs at a very early age, despite attempts to merge them with peers who are merely heavier than average. Often, other children in the same family have average weight. This I think is true in Davis's case, though I cannot find the documentary that told her story.

A few honorable souls are even beginning to mention the unmentionable, the most obvious term missing all these years.

CURE

That's perhaps a misguided reference to the coining of weight as disease, but the sentiment is correct. Resolution is required, fakery cannot even finesse this.Weight, neither thinness nor fatness passes muster as 'disease.' No process no matter how benign can go unchecked without being an expression of and/or a creator of problems.

The issue here is how to check and change alter this outcome via its source, metabolic function. Not allowing that and running around like headless chickens after the fact-for a lifetime and calling that "lifestyle."

Despite hearing all about the desperation of medics desire to avoid encountering fatness, we rarely hear the obvious need for a real understanding of what's going on. What we see here is the result of that total investment in calorie restriction as weight regulation-weight shouldn't need "management." Calorie restriction is not a treatment of any kind-it follows the trick perfected by psychiatry of replacing unacceptable pathology with an acceptable one, proto-anorexia. Everything is centered around enforcing this. Including increasingly the law and politics.

That's what the talk of "support" is about.  Supporting the investiture and maintenance of this pathology no matter the cost, whilst pretending "support" is for the person.

And its supposed to be people like Georgia who have the mental dependence.

Bariatric [spellchecks as "barbaric"] surgery is more of the same. It's just a way of cutting people into an unnatural tolerance for what all our bodies are designed around fighting off- starvation.

What's needed are actual treatment pathways for dealing with symptoms, reducing an excess of hunger/appetite re-balancing hunger to a normal range. Along with ways to set the body on course to reversing its weight for those who require or wish it.

Not dieting, but something that directly changes underlying metabolic function, calorie restriction in any form is simply not up to the job.

What's needed from the white coats above all is a complete shift in their consciousness, back to proper investigation and rigourous study of actual biology. You cannot fake or front weight. There's an equation here that requires proper deduction. How long will this keep being dodged?

And let me make it clear, this is not simply about weight loss dieting being the only channel for changing weight. It is the absence of the stages of learning that come from treating actual people as opposed to pressing them into your rigid framework.

When someone comes to medical notice with anything unusual, the default medical instinct is to work with and observe that person and their symptoms closely and objectively. Monitoring if anything at all makes their symptoms -in this case excessive hunger/voracious weight gain-better or worse in any way. Then following up these leads to try and uncover underlying function, using that to invoke and strengthen positive effects.

Avenue after avenue is tried until a path can be found that's leads to measurable effects. At the side of that further investigations are mounted into the most crucial anatomy/physiology concerned. That doesn't seem to be happening or has been arrested by the extent of devotion to calories in/out.

The learning curve is extinguished.

As you can see from the link about Mandy Sellars, even going as far as cutting something thats growth is generated at a physiological level can leave that underlying cause intact, causing a restoration of the problem, to some degree or other. 

Even more true of reducing weight via induced calorie deficit. Weight tends to restore itself according to its self regulatory or homeostatic design. This is inevitably dubbed "mental," by those invested in restriction. It has to be due to their denial of these physiological facts.

People predictably use blame to obscure fact. Her mother's the type that fed Georgia not the recommended baby diet, shall we say. Hate to inform haters but she isn't alone in that. And if it caused people to be cut out of their homes we'd have noticed.

Blame is not the way I seek to cast fat people and Davis is no different, however it has to be stated plainly that her case has been woefully mismanaged by authorities even given the abysmal standard that is the norm for 'obesity'. She's been given little chance to use her undoubted drive, willingness and energies productively. At every turn she's been mislead as to the nature of her problems, allowing her to cast blame upon herself, which is an act of cruelty.

It's been pretty noticeable that there has been something wrong with her body's functioning since she was a child.

She dates her accelerated gain from the age of 5, when her father died. That was 17 years ago. Parental bereavement has been cited as a trigger of high/heightened weight in childhood.

A subset of children body's manifest such reaction. I suspect it is a product some kind of developmental difference of the body, nervous and endocrinal systems, to be producing this extent of symptoms. I firmly see this as mainly physiological, rather than psychological. Though looking at it from a holistic point of view, the state and tension of your nervous system triggers biochemical and neural changes.

It's no good saying you can't find anything (physical) so its mental. If you are looking in mythical "disease" terms, you'll be even less likely to see what is there. The same failure that occurs with people at the top of the weight scale happens with those at the bottom who also regain minimal weight lost via calorie restriction regularly.  

Only other day I was reminded of a potential insight. Perhaps adverse experience in some, can trigger the nervous system to strip away the usually dormant feelings as the body manoeuvres about measuring its need for energy. So a person can feel it all at a rather heightened level (to whatever degree). Like some forms of chronic pain syndrome.

Just a thought.

Which is more than a lot of people are having about this.

When she first came to medical attention she weighed 33 stones/ 462lbs / 209 kg  she was told that she needed to lose 20 stones/280lbs/127.5 kg. In a matter of months she managed to lose over 14 st [196lbs/ 89 kg] at a US fat camp.

She rebounded to 40stones/ 560lbs /254kg. And so on, up to 60stones/ 840lbs/381 kg, down to 30 in hospital apparently, then back up to 60st and now supposedly 55st/770lbs/349kg.

When she first came to attention the aim should have been to try and stabilize her at 33st/462lbs/209kgs. See how good that looks now. Professionals need to learn to put their patients interests first and not their own desires.

Due to all the obsessive fixation on food-with a list of all she eats being de rigueur to stimulate the perennially disgusted, few can conceive of what it feels like to be subject to this level of hunger. The sheer discomfort of  bearing what is propelling heightened intake gets ignored.

What I can say is my experience with excessive HUNGER was it felt like a powerful presence was pressing down through the centre of my brain. 

Only recently did I realize this is around site of the hypothalamus/pituitary.When I was lucky to reverse it, my much yearned for weight loss didn't happen. But I would never have swapped that for liberation from maniacal hunger. It feels like being possessed and directed by a malevolent force at times.

Stabilizing a patient is not unique, after assessing a person, it's basic medical practice. The only thing that will bring good practice to this area is when people will no longer stand for this.

The medical establishment demanding everything and everyone change to their tune could also make such change of their own volition.

Starve 'n' Sweat Cannot Argue with Itself

Being dangerously overweight is all down to bad diet rather than a lack of exercise, according to a trio of doctors who have reopened the debate about whether food, sedentary lifestyles or both are responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Where to begin?

Best to deal with what I emphasized. You may not be surprised to learn, that is not a debate. That happens when two or more opposing views are aired. [Why's the @besity crusade either busy chasing or faking non-debates? Is there anything it isn't faking?] Calories in, calories out, or the diet-weight hypothesis refers to the construction of body size as the product of calorie intake minus calorie output.

They are both the same idea, calorie or energy manipulation, via opposing ends (of the same branch). Anything which deals with directly manipulating energy is just a different means to bring about said aim-that includes, stomach removal/gastric re-routing, gastric binding along with most slimming drugs.

They all advance on the same principle, reduce the amount of energy coming in and/or increase the amount going out.

What would be another idea? Theoretically, it'd have to be altering the mechanics that produce weight to change that outcome. In concrete terms, I'm not sure. Everything has been so centered on starve 'n' sweat deliberately, and our grasp of the interplay of metabolic systems so limited, that its hard to get in the mindset of other ideas.

Other routes have been gone down, which could signify other ideas.
 
Manipulating gut flora via bacterial transfer gut, obviously doesn't target fat tissue directly. It appears to have the same mechanical flaw as repeating energy manipulation-homeostasis unravels it, though there maybe a subset of people in whom its affective.

Seems that gut flora as well as acting "like an organ" is a cog in metabolic function, not a driver of metabolic outcomes.

An even further outsider is through something like meditation, yoga, or other practices that soothe/stimulate/refresh the nervous system. That pathway's a long shot because it doesn't promise any amount of weight reversal, though has the potential to if it can be directed at the right place. As usual exceptions apply.

Restorative therapies can lessen hunger and/or appetite because they target/affect/manipulate the nervous system. Cals in/out-starve 'n' sweat-targets fat tissue via suppressing hunger and appetite. Meditation and other restorative therapies affect the system that carries the various messaging and biochemically mediates the operations of metabolic function. Thus supporting greater integrity of function. 

The latter works with the body the former disrupts it. That's the "battle" as in "battle with my weight." Not your will, but your body's metabolic self regulation.

It could be comparable to taking on your immune system [starve 'n' sweat] versus supporting and improving its level of function [restorative therapies].

Starve versus sweat is a non-argument that has become sterile even to many committed fat phobes. It speaks of people who are stuck in a mental hole they refuse to get out of. It's back and forth, round and round is made from ideology above biology. Neither starving nor sweating is the route to reversing weight. Blame is not an issue, even if it mattered.

This is anatomy, not morality.

Leptin and Gherlin

The Leptin, Ghrelin duo are a watershed for me. They're the only things I had no grasp or understanding about coming into FA. Not even sure whether I'd heard of them before. Leptin possibly.

My response to them has been monumental indifference. I simply cannot make myself give much of a fig about either. Despite someone winning a prize for the discovery of one of them. They've been described as hormones.

Leptin; "is a mediator of long-term regulation of energy balance," okay.  "...suppressing food intake and thereby inducing weight loss." Don't see why. "Suppressing intake" presumably, equals a dampening / switch off of hunger/appetite signalling. Why would that necessarily lead to weight loss, even over time?

Gherlin "... is a fast-acting hormone," fast? Okay.  "....seemingly playing a role in meal initiation."

Wut?
Meal initiation? Seems oddly specific. Does that mean you proceed from hunger to actually "initiate" eating...food.....whether that's a meal or no? Anorexics can be agonized with hunger, but eating action fails between that and their "eat button."

My sketchy take on this lack of engagement is the 'obesity' crew have come up with very little of any use to any person fat or otherwise, apart from mainly the unethical and the unspeakable. I believe they're unlikely to do better anytime soon, if  many of them are even trying-more than for show.

Ob as a field of endeavour is doa-the arrival point being basic critical scrutiny or even, consciousness. It makes no sense to compartmentalize the study of metabolic function across size. Weight needs to be viewed as a (whole) spectrum. Defining fat people as disease is stupid. Studying biology in them to pathologize and justify that pre-decided branding, leads to obscuring of everyone's metabolic, that is biological function.

An obvious example is the assumption many have that weight rebound-after calorie restriction diet induced loss is specific to fat people. That its part of our purported failings as human beings (despite us already being robbed of that definition). When this can be observed in all people from thinner to fatter. Hence the former always losing the same 5, 10, 15, 30 etc., pounds.

Obviously if you rebound all the time whilst always being thin that isn't going to show. How can this confusion be a good thing? Seems like wasting the efforts of those who are putting the work in.

Hardly my idea of science.

Anyway. I happen to have clicked on the above link on some article or post and it lead to that paper.You can tell exactly what line it takes. "As a growing number of people suffer from obesity...." oh please. Studying mechanisms that have "influence on energy balance has been a subject of intensive research." That has amounted to what practical applications exactly?

Perhaps its shortness drew my eye. "In obese subjects the circulating level of the anorexigenic hormone leptin is increased, whereas surprisingly, the level of the orexigenic hormone ghrelin is decreased." Yeah, whatev's.
"It is now established that obese patients are leptin-resistant."

That was like a cattle prod. It's been "established" has it? On what basis? Immediate thought. Any chance its this? Yes, it seems thus. Because you expect a high amount of leptin in the blood to =less eats and fat people by (your) definition=too much eats. Ergo, ob must be resistant to leptin.

Naughty old obeses. Not only don't they listen to physics/their docs/everybody knows. Their blood is naughty too-it doesn't listen to its leptin.

It's leptin non-complaint.

Well, that's what happens when you turn people into biochemistry to make the ridiculous idea that they are disease look as if it makes sense. Well it does-to an army of self deluding bigots.

Let's just check the circulating leptin of people suffering from underweighcity, bet its as low as fatz is high, eh? Seems so; "Plasma leptin levels were significantly lower in underweight patients than those in normal weight patients and in healthy controls."

So, the action of the body regulating itself is bad on one end, because that's the bad end.

These papers are from 2007. Though the latter came after the former and there's nothing wrong with being wrong in pursuit of knowledge. This still indicates the underlying problem with framing, interpretation and presentation.

Rather than studying human metabolic function, through the weight to map out how it works overall. Discovering any pathology through digging that out, rather than seeking only to confirm your desired moribund hypothesis.

The former, gives all sorts of flexibility. It helps us to understand ourselves better and helps facilitate greater understanding of where and when things go awry.

Corrected or not though, why bother to create this unnecessary hurdle? What's the point of it? To police behaviour? To keep fat phobes nervous systems on high alert so they can keep thought on lockdown? You think science can take such and retain its integrity?

I still don't know exactly what leptin or ghrelin are for. I can't even buy completely into  the interpretation of insulin resistance.....yet.