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.

Fat Feet

Or, ya feets too big.

Person A: "What do you want to study?"

Person B: "Fat feet".

Person A: "Don't you mean feet?"

Person B: "No, fat feet".

Person A: "Podiatry?"

Person B: "Fat feet".

Person A: "If fat feet is not simply feet that are bigger, how do you define fat feet?"

Person B: "When feet are above a certain size, it becomes a disease we call fat feetishness."

Person A: "But surely that just refers to feet that are fatter?"

Person B: "There are feet and then there are feet above a certain index of mass."

Person A: "Surely all feet produce their mass using the same anatomical processes? Pathologising feet on the basis of size would mean a person who has bigger feet no longer has feet, they have a disease instead?"

Person B: *Crickets*

Many years later......

Person B: "They're a person with fat feet."

Person A: *Yawn* "How does that differ from a person's feet?"

Person B: "The WHO, the AMA, the DSMV and other authoritative bodies all agree fat feet is a thing."

Person A: "Do you wish to study fat feet to find the most efficient means to stop feet getting above a certain size?"

Person B: "The priority is to overwhelm with evidence of how bad fat feet is."

Person A: "What will that do?"

Person B: "It's the only way"

Person A: "To achieve what?"

Person B: "It's obvious!"
 
Person A: "I still don't get why don't just study the anatomy and physiology of the human foot and work out the easiest way to nudge the physiological function of feet into stopping at an acceptable size. It's a question of mechanics of biology surely." 

Person B: "I don't think you understand how bad fat feet is. You seem to be enabling fat feet, because you are; addicted, disordered, not feeling your emotions, sexually abused..... You need treatment, therapy, education, pity, taxation, advice, sanction, support..."

Person A, (again): "I promise you fat feet are just feet that are bigger, they're feet just the same as any other, just the same size. Seriously, podiatry has not [yet] announced that it has broken away from any particular size of feet."

'Obesity' is a Myth

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

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

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

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

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

Instead we have;

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

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

Surprise, Surprise!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

A sugar tax is to pay for quacks, fund SCIENCE instead

The slimstream got what it wanted over the term of the current 'obesity' crusade. What all humans want, for food that it likes to be widely available, amongst other things. Its very own 'obesity' construct helped, there's much citing of "personal responsibility" as being the locus of weight control-for fat people anyway. Therefore acting in the face of requiring an evisceration of calories was fine until......getting what they wanted brought them a greater sense of clarity. 

Slim people previously allowed themselves to believe their slimness is down to some vigourous yet invisible exercise of self control on their part.  Now they're concluding their mythological will isn't what's keeping them slim or enabling them to become as thin as they wannabe, after all.

What do you know, its time to control the food environment via the proposal of a sugar tax. Apart from laughable cries of faddiction, they advance this volte face behind their beloved conceit.

I say suddenly sugar, but way back in the day it fat was the enemy, on the grounds that fat in your food meant fat or your arse: pause and let the elegance flow through you again. Fat was to be reduced from an horrific 30% or thereabouts of one's intake, to half that and even 10% when of course that didn't make fatz low-fat.

This caused industrial food to obey by accelerating its mis-use of sugar to compensate for qualities lost by the removal of fat. It has also obediently reversed this. It's accused of doing nothing as fat people are, due to it not having the demanded effect.

This morality play is presented by the slimstream as dirty tricks upon its poor innocence (i.e. belief it can walk on water when it comes to weight) as if taste is not in their mouths. Et voila we have another little turn of the macronutrient whirl. 

If you want to talk about the so called 'evidence' in favour of this nonsense (give me strength). I haven't had the heart to abuse my brain with it anymore. There's no more appalled, hate reading style fun, its just risible. I do not like to make a habit of not reading what I criticise. In spite of this, I can confidently sum up from the premise laid out is that it consists of; lots and lots and lots and lots of sugar in your diet is 'bad' for you ergo sugar is {{{{poison}}}}.

Look closely at anything written about this currently and I think you'll find that summation punches way above its little weight in doing justice to the sugar ist poison hoodoo.

Suffice to say this will "work" just as well as any other intention of the 'obesity' agenda, but the most salient and sinister fact is the real agenda behind this tax is to establish funding streams (this would just be the start) to promote and enable even more invasive interference in people's lives.

Not being able to thus far has held them back. Heaven help us all-regardless of weight- if they get their grubby mitts on a steady stream of filthy lucre. 'Obesity' quackery has always struggled to gain secure funding so that it can abuse people in a more sustained all encompassing way.

Whatever nonsense is spoken about Mexico, France and Scandinavia, countries like the UK and America aren't them. Even if shame taxes did the job which they don't, the will just isn't there.

Permitting people to perish trying to trap and keep any and all [fat] people trapped into starvation either free form or surgical, but that too has trapped these societies into a certain course.

Science.

Certainly it would not only have been he right thing to do, it would have been far cheaper than tormenting people with lifestyle anorexia, butchering and mutilating them and leaving their weight unchecked to go where it may, whilst vigourous attempts are made to block, block, block things that would seem just as challenging on the face of it.

Why is their no means to block weight from getting higher if that's oh so offensive "unhealthy"? How much of this 'obesity' fuss would not have been if that was available? Oh right I'm answering my own questions again aren't I. Taxing food does not give anyone personal control. 

The locus of control of shame taxes is firmly in the hands of those proposing and seeking to gain from them.

Just as there's a pretense that becoming fat as a child must seal your fate, so should the insistence on allowing industrial fast food into schools, hospitals, every nook and cranny should been seen as having sealed the actual fate of the 'obesity' lobby.

Quackery has run its course, truth is the only way out of this false consciousness.

Fighting to get money to interfere with the big business you liberated, the reasons you went along haven't really abated, is frankly a futile waste of time. 

This has all gone way beyond anything but progress through objective research into metabolic function. So remember to give the 'obesity' industry, public and private what it desires so much to give to especially to fat people. Starvation.......of funds.

Starve the bastards of funding, what they call "the costs of obesity" (i.e. them).  Remove any being given to the worthless slimming industry and instead fund teams of the best and brightest minds to help us all grasp how our bodies produce weight.

Stumbling on how my body produced excess hunger was the way I ended the tyranny of hyperhunger. That was effectively a rebalancing of a certain aspect of metabolic function.

The control must be put in the hands of people. If you wish to campaign to control the food people eat, do that in the open. It's interesting that some openly say they wish to abolish tobacco products, but wouldn't have said that from the start.

The logic of low fat and/or low sugar was actually the end of the food industry as we know it.

The advice to cut fat was intended to direct us to the naturally low-fat foods that existed at the time, namely vegetables, fruits, beans, lentils, whole grains, and lean meats.

Whether you think that's good or bad, that has to be the endgame. That and the insistence that weight is "behavioural" is at the heart of the why of micronutrient whirl really.

Metabolic manipulation is entirely feasible, logical and achievable, to manipulate it more effectively and painlessly. It's also potentially good for way more than mere metabolic function. It simply requires honest sustained effort. Something no one involved in such as 'sugar taxing' should be allowed anything to do with.

That in itself would be a refreshing change. 

oac ABOLISH the 'obesity' construct instead

You're going to lurrrve this.

An organisation calling itself the "obesity action coalition" (oac) launched a campaign on the 6th of July this year to "Ban the F word", not the one that rhymes with yuck, they mean "fat". Why says you? It is purportedly to end "fat shaming." Or "weight bias".

 Fat shaming being the term for the referencing of fat people's lowered social status-caused by the 'obesity' construct, heavily sold by its wallahs-via insults developed on the theme of the insulting and dehumanizing 'obese' caricature.

Something neither (real) scientists nor medics have any business involving themselves in the creation of.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how cheeky these industry grifters are. If they do not like that, I'm sure they can take action. The oac claims as one of its victories, the taking down of the video put up by Kevin MD "Healthcare not fair-Dr. Sorry Ms Fatty." According to reports, they and 'the obesity society' (toc) had a word, which probably explains its prompt removal. Another one they claim is the seeing off of a rule to IQ test bariatric patients pre-surgery.

I don't have enough capacity to look that up, but I'm guessing it refers to an attempt by the bariatric industry itself, to stop people with intellectual disabilities from being butchered by bariatrick cutty men* was removed by their "advocacy". They're so helpful to fatz.

Though that could come back to haunt someone.

What intrigues is why KMD didn't bother to mention this advocacy, indeed, he lead us all to believe that it was down to more general complaints.

Physicians needed to hear from patients on this issue, and their voices came through loud and clear.

It would be overly coy to ask why front organisations featuring professionals can get heard with the speed of light. So I won't bother. It does illustrate something I've been pointing out for years, that the support of the white coat mafia is the reason for the windchill factor level of abandonment and hazing fat people have endured (and still do albeit to a vaguely lesser extent). Not the (slim) fat phobic public, nor your family, school yard bullies or even the slimming industry.

Anyhow, this ban the fat word mess is an obvious and crude attempt to co-opt fat acceptance, note the fat fist thrust into a militant salute (they know where that can go). The cheeky blighters deserve to have that nicked for thorough subversion. This organisation who states is purpose is "giving a voice to the individuals affected by the disease of obesity" wants to erase the word "fat" to give 'obesity' a clearer run. They insist weight is disease.

It is 'obesity' that needs abolishing. The actual underlying construct needs to go. It's not the word its the conceptualization it conveys.

Its existence is a cynical agenda laden ideological construct made for the benefit of professionals and people who wish to sell you things. Whilst weight outliers who often have something seriously awry are permitted to perish in the margins. Unheralded by these beneficent "voice givers." People who do not need "support" in their "journey", they need an actual scientific grasp of how to deal with the metabolic dysfunction erased by the existence of 'obesity' and its bullshit.

The cause of "weight stigma" is this misdirection and the measures taken to attempt to interest people in what would otherwise have no earthly interest to them. How much do you care about slim people's weight, now you've withdrawn from the imposition? No really, how often do you spend looking at slim people and thinking, "Your weight, your weight?"

No one is interested in weight, people are interested in being able to regulate and control the functioning of their bodies. Diet and exercise is the opposite of that. It is not only ineffective, regularly creating and/or increasing the "problem" its supposed to be solving/preventing. But it also makes you a servant of it. Your so called 'journey' is a life based around it.

Only people with serious malfunctioning of organs are expected to piss away so much mindspace, spirit and energy on a dishonest abstraction. And they at least have the prospect of imminent death to "motivate" them. By that I mean, they can die within the day without certain interventions.

If you look at a set of weighing scales, the ones for instance where a balance slides from one end to the other to measure a person's weight. That's  the same the breadth of human weight. Now imagine that a line was drawn at a certain point on that scale rule and it is announced that past this line is something different from what has come before.

You'd be incredulous. You can see with your own eyes, its a question of what point on the same scale. The mechanics that produce weight are rather like that, its a question of finding out how/where to alter that to stop weight from increasing or decreasing at a certain point.

Weight, as in "weight bias" is not " disease" at any point, though forces pushing it up or down the scale may well be. Like fertility before birth control, the issue with weight is there is no known effective means of stopping it unless your body does instinctively. Or it yields to starvation/forced eating.

In any other aspect of human functioning, finding out how to achieve that directly and efficiently would be recognized as the overriding aim. Instead 'obesity' an obsolete creation lost in the mists of time, an artificial derail has rooted itself in place like a useless stinky weed that keeps re-sprouting to cause confusion even to those below the Maginot Line of weight respectability, wishes only to perpetuate its own outrageously useless existence.

Its long since outlived any imagined usefulness.

ABOLISH THE 'OBESITY' CONSTRUCT

Replace it with proper wholly objective investigation into the anatomy and functioning of human metabolism and homoeostasis. This bitty-birth order, Internet use, ice cream fancying gives "greater risk for obesity" bollocks needs to end. This 'obesity', puts you at greater risk of x, y, or z illness-as if that does anything, needs to cease. By finding out what something is all about, you find out how good/bad or indifferent it is or can be. All is required for understanding. No-one understands any condition/state etc., via trying to make it an unimpeachable villain.

Instead, we need to be concerned with a sense of what parts are involved in recreating our cells and tissue, our meat and marrow and a sense of its physiological dynamics. That in and of itself would decimate "weight bias" more than any laws on the statue, pleading, social justice efforts or janus faced "advocacy".

I'll repeat, the issue is not the words used, it is the concepts they're transmitting. Defining fat people's bodies as slim ones suffocating in an adipose suit that is their own bodies, is not only stupid, mindless and pathological, it is and can only be a hopelessly biased dead end that will continue to go nowhere slowly.

Think of those thin people who think everyone fatter than they ="fat", including slim people. Now imagine these thin people insisting that slim people define themselves as thin people wearing a padded onesie.

Exactly.

Altogether again,

ABOLISH THE 'OBESITY' CONSTRUCT

  

Plus its attendant pseudo-science. Fat people are not an employment scheme for the lumpen bourgeoisie.

* Interestingly, obesity and its associated co-morbid conditions are prevalent in patients with cognitive impairment, but the risks and benefits of bariatric surgery in this complex group are not well known.

Studies examining outcomes have been limited to case reports, and thus most bariatric programs do not consider patients with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to be surgical candidates. At more severe levels of impairment (Intelligence Quotient [IQ] 50-70), only 6.2% of programs do not consider this a contraindication. Furthermore, published guidelines, such as the 2013 AACE/TOS/ASMBS guidelines on perioperative management of the bariatric patient [2009 version], note the importance of a clear understanding of the risks, benefits, outcomes, and alternatives to surgery, and this ability to consent may be compromised in those with cognitive impairments.

 NB A study of 169 prospective bariatric surgery patients

Morbidly obese individuals seeking bariatric surgery were similar in education, income status, and IQ compared with normative data.

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.

HAES is not the Paradigm Shift

HAES- "health at every size" refers to making wellbeing/ health decisions according to what works and makes sense to you-which is the norm for all humankind. Those choices go according to what best facilitates your ability to function, what suits you best and what is most sustainable for you. HAES came from fat people's own desire to re-assert a normalcy that had been derailed by official interference from medical healthcare influence and society as a whole.

In other words, its (fat) people behaving normally. 

The real paradigm shift happened when fat people were diverted from that cause in order to adopt calorie restriction as a way of life. That wasn't the initial intent, which was temporary. It spread to take over people's lives because its dysfunction and profound inefficacy did not act as a break on its imposition.

No "evidence" was produced to show that this made sense or even what it was supposed to achieve.

The instigator of this counter-intuitive, self harming and futile behaviour was people considered to be scientists and the actual medical profession. Via cultural imposition of discomfort and unease they sought to make good the idea of being as disease.

In other words, the main driver of calorie restriction dieting-which is repulsive to most people was escape at any cost, not a positive embrace of the foul. 

No "evidence" was produced as to show how this improved health or even would succeed in these purported goals. Which were supposedly slimness but look far more like deepening and containing a person in a no-man's land between discomfort and self abuse. What would be the point of seeking to ghettoize people as a class-by weight-in order to liberate them from said ghettoization?

No plan was made of how this was to work out. 

The basis of excusing this behaviour was pathologization of fat people or 'obesity' which posited people as slim with or without the imposition of an adipose suit that is a disease, a dis-ease generating organ etc.,

No proof could be advanced for this as it doesn't accord with anatomy. Declaring slim people as shrunken failed fat people cannot be proven as the premise doesn't hold. The human body is not ideology, its anatomy that's objectively observable.

No evidence advanced for which pathways would turn this kind of stress into health-in those above a certain body mass. No one would expect pathologizing (slim) people, defining them no longer as human but as dis-ease as leading to health benefits. So at least explanations would be required to explain why that changes.....

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 

None was proffered. 

The reason I have difficulty with haes is, I have little idea why normality is being touted as a paradigm shifting novelty. This continues the learned habit of defining anything that comes from people as case for the defense. When actually, the prosecution has not proven its case.

In case of any undue excitement, its lack of such does not mean either the process of weight and weight itself cannot be a problem. I shouldn't have to mention that though, because its obvious the 'obesity' has little interest in dealing with that. Their case is solely about social engineering and doleing out punishment.

Deliberate intent to contrive unnecessary pathology goes against all the rules of health. Even a snake oil salesman or a quack knows better than that. This could be easy to miss in the case of 'obesity', because we're used to treatments for life threatening conditions, i.e. chemotherapy for cancer being almost as rough as the disease itself.

That is a by-product, a side effect of the treatment not its aim. That's the difference between real disease and 'obesity'- the former is a problem which treatment seeks to relieve whilst the main aim of cure is at the helm. 'Obesity' wallahs own estimation of 'obesity' is its nowhere near disease enough.

Diet funk about to clear?

Finally....

“It would be all but impossible to carry out a research trial where you controlled the diets of thousands of people over many years. That’s why guidance in the UK is based on a consensus of the evidence available not just on randomised controlled trials.” Victoria Taylor, senior dietitian at the BHF

...the obvious.

There is certainly a strong argument that an overreliance in public health on saturated fat as the main dietary villain for cardiovascular disease has distracted from the risks posed by other nutrients such as carbohydrates. Yet replacing one caricature with another does not feel like a solution.

It's clear that ones diet is designed to be a bit too specific to a person's needs for dietary advice to be generalized beyond a certain point. Whether its their physiological and yes psychological make-up, their preferences according mainly though not wholly to exposure. Environment, culture, region, etc., The best way to get beyond the general advice is to learn to fine tune the interpretation and response to your own hunger and appetite.

General guidelines often seek to minimize risk to those with genetic susceptibilities. It's a bit like weight loss dieting. The insistence on this as the basis of weight regulation and "health" has left those susceptible to virtually all ED's from anorexia to hyperphagia to blunder far too often into these tendencies unwittingly.

So sacrificing minority susceptibility for, in this case, a perceived good isn't necessarily ethical. In this case it's clear that the exact nature of dieting needs to be made abundantly clear. And nor should it be the basis of anything.

When it comes to general dietary guidelines, too many have been seduced by the idea of one perfect diet. It's one thing to diagnose vitamin C deficiency and another to say, there's a diet suitable for all, which everyone should follow.

I suspect this has been invested with the desire to enforce a somewhat imagined bourgeois standard on everyone. On the grounds that this will in itself uplift society.

Finding out how diet affects health isn't particularly amenable to scientific inquiry-way too many variables- I hope this spate of admissions will hold. Recognizing limitations may actually help boffins to identify and make use of what actually is useful.

The aim needs to change too. Instead of trying to control other people, try assisting them with making better use of what comes naturally.

The Obese Entry Point

For a crusade trading so long on pointing out indolence, the 'obesity' crusade is remarkably fond of re-cycling it's old tat. Calorie restriction dieting, lifestyle change/choice, lifestyle/weight management. Exercise, activity, active lifestyle, health, all referring to the same.

At least there, bothering to alter terms. Probably because the false consciousness was being rumbled. 

Not yet with a current favourite, invoking terrorism.

"Obesity is a bigger cost for Britain than war and terror." 20 November 2014 

Really? That's funny because;

"Obesity more dangerous than terrorism: experts. The Age- 25 February 2008

"Obesity, bigger threat than terrorism?" CBS- 1 March 2006

The guardian itself; [US] "Obesity epidemic, bigger threat than terrorism?" 3 March 2006

Now this terrible scourge....................... of hackdrivel has caught up with poor old Blighty. 'Twas inevitable. There's been a lumbering up to this one as crude as the bluntest filled-with-visceral-horror stereotype of a fat person on the move.

Most of the above is attributed to one Richard Carmona, an ex-US surgeon general. He exited his post on 31 July 2007. All this was so compelling that it took a while for the press to get excited. Perhaps they knew b/s when they smelt it?

In the end though, the press give the public co-ordinated sockpuppets who make approving noises whenever this propaganda appears what they want-traffic and all that. [I'm increasingly suspicious of BTL comments on these adipocalypse puff pieces.]

So what are we to make of this report excuse for passing the constipated matter that is this torrid bumpf? I'm still deciding whether its worth wading through a 2MB pdf re-hash that I'm guessing isn't dominated by graphics.

It says it has evidence for 44 interventions, into the lives of people out of 70 something they considered *gulp*, being acceptable. Eurgh.When a person has to do that many things to do something your body does automatically, you know it's about the approach, the intervention/s. 

Self named a "discussion paper", it majors on the usual fat people as other. A cost burden- though by that same posit, slim people could be deemed other and a cost to fat/ter people.

Not right now though, the establishment is leading this "discussion" [euphemism for not one]. And though the evidence is that men in many countries, men tend to have a more uniform spread of weight across class, than women, [though we're continually told they're making inroads.]

This adds up to slimness as default human. What do all these f-a-t establishment figures think whilst going along with this? Do they think they aren't fat? Is their fatness somehow obviated by wealth/influence? Does the old saying "You can never be to rich or too thin" need a re-work to something like "You can never truly be an 'obese' if you're rich?"/ "The 'obese' mask cannot rest on the face of a rich man?"

A lot of the powers that be and their cronies are receiving more and more money for this old rope.  'obese' is really just an entry point for other things. Consisting increasingly in sticking its nose in your beeswax, ordering you around, telling you exactly how to live and what to do with your free time. What am I talking about "free time" do you think you have any?

Time belongs to the man! What would Einstein say?

Invasive lifestyle management, mental re-adjustment-to sustain anorexic behaviours, finally admitted to require jettisoning the mental drain that was the 'obese' persona imposed on fat people. "We're all be 'obese' by the year 20 whatever" now reveals a new undercurrent of meaning. Wishful thinking.

When people are 'obese' they can lose their sense of self. They will take the kind of orders they otherwise wouldn't dream of. If you're goal was power, would you be "incentivized" to turn society's weight around? 'Obeses' are ideal citizenry, trusting, docile, obedient-grateful.

It's funny isn't it? We went along with we must become slim. Slim people went along with being part of enforcing this. And now we may all go down together tethered to this boat. 

Pills, anti-seizure meds, operations to remove stomachs. Assessing, controlling people's lives to a tee from cradle to grave, with the threat of this or death penalty. By the time people see through this, goodness knows how much they'll have made away with. Or what will be left of our sense of self or freedom or even healthcare.

PTB are like petty criminals, opportunist to a fault.

Now when you hear "obesity costs", you know you're hearing the kind of cash they intend to drain out of healthcare in order to "save" healthcare expenditure or even whole systems. The NHS is having trouble not because of political re-arranging with every change of government, or the inflexible practise of a stiff medical hierarchy, but because too many of us are ovah-whait;

The UK spends less than £638m a year on obesity prevention programmes – about 1% of the social cost, the study finds.

That much? I wonder what on? Certainly not to find out ways of say blocking people's bodies from scaling whatever highest heights they happen to be triggered into. Or simply trying to stabilise people's weight, rather than operate and remove their organs, under the ransom of continued gain and/or actual health problems.

Despite there already being more leads than many imagine. Its like any "sin", the lack of answer is not a reading of the state of our knowledge, it's rough justice for the "sinners."

As I always said, there is no objective evidence that this particular crusade is that invested in reducing people's weight. It's more into setting up the idea that your life is not your own. Starting with casting bodies as disease and de-animating fat people, defining us as non-sentient fat suits.

Whether this ownership comes through religion, politics or healthcare? Who cares? The same classes run them all-till they lose power. Fat people are simply a current conduit for this kind of impulse.

So, we ought to be pissing away more resources even more uselessly down the drain? And the people like these report writers, medical professionals, nutritionists, psychiatrists, social workers everyone's out for a bit of this, can get paid to tell us to do what we've already done under our own initiative, in the guise "personal responsibility."

 Now laughable including taking pills and being operated on to reduce the function of your functioning body. Since when is the surgery arm of the medical machine "personal"?

Despite no evidence of dead fat bodies littering the streets, nor even of life expectancy regressing a la their ceaseless so-called predictions.

Being Felled by your Own Hating is Something to Avoid

After years of "humiliation" and "shame", Linda Kelsey ex-editor of cosmo and rampant misogynist wonders why young fat women- who should be feeling as bad as her very great self-don't seem to her to be;

what I witnessed was a let-it-all-hang-out faith in themselves and a don't-give-a-damn attitude to their evident obesity. ......Far more attention and, dare I say it, opprobrium needs to be directed at young fatties.

Despite being a hack, she didn't think to strike up a convo and find out. Probably for the best.

She claims women have swallowed the "dangerous body positive message." They're concerned about their daughters weight but dare not say lest tip them into anorexia.Well, as calorie restriction is the primary instrument of anorexia, they've got something.

Though, is she sure it's simply that?

My mental and physical collapse — the most accurate way I know to describe what happened to me — was a clear sign that, like many women of my generation, I was spreading myself too thinly, trying to do too much, too perfectly, without letting my superwoman mask slip. 

Perhaps these women are aware of what a (literally) dead end hating your body and/or self is and where it can lead?

Depression sucks the life-force out of you. It makes you hate yourself. It makes you feel utterly worthless.

After all;

nearly one in five adults experience anxiety or depression, with the highest levels occurring in women in over 50

And;

Though those figures are high, they also mean that if you are one of those unlucky ones, four out of five people won’t have a clue what you’re going through.

The "unlucky" ones? It hardly counts as bad ill-luck if you end up there after life of cloaking yourself in body shame.

She starts her earlier piece on what shame and self hatred does to a susceptible mind describing the awful torpor of neurosis. Years of high anxiety exhausting the nervous system-which then collapses into a state of chronic exhaustion, i.e. depression. Turning an everyday errand to the supermarket into a "herculean task. Impossible"

Does she think people as borish as herself walking past her at that time, like she walked past those fat women, would know what she felt inside? From the outside?

After wasting years doing the same kind of thing that helped get her to this point-chiding herself for failing her perfectionist standards-she finally cottoned on that this was rather self defeating. When she got the end of her will to live;

Having sunk to a place where I believed that I, and all those who loved me, would be better off if I was dead,

Yes, she was committed. Even if she does believe fatness is 'unhealthy' she ought to have learned something about the paradox of human beings doing things they think are right, only to end up with unintended consequences.

Instead she prefers glib talk show therapy speak. Claiming gratitude for the experience. She wishes, this tirade reveals she's as bitter as a pike wishing on others what she barely endured and is still struggling with. Except to to exhort others to surround and force them into this state so that unlike her, there's no escape for them, when they've had enough.

As with other fat phobes, solipsists personnified. This has already happened to many fat people. And perhaps the young women themselves may have already been to that abyss. Gabourey Sidibe was put on her first diet at six and burnt out at about 19. Later she made the decision not just to stop chasing bad, but to step up and decide who she was and how she was going to feel about herself.

All you do is climb in, then have to claw your way out again. As Kelsey had to. I don't care who you are or what you weigh, at some point, you will have to decide who you are, regardless of what or who others think you are or should be.

This is what a mature woman with the wisdom of experience is supposed to tell young women. That wasting yourself like this, will get you a blown nervous system, that may never truly recover.

That's a lot of her problem, living in that head full of hatefulness and shame, 24/7. Never being able to get away. Sorry, but not all depressions are the same. Not everyone is depressed because they received bad treatment, from others.

This woman still has the same hateful credo that pulled her under her own moving vehicle. Her "recovery" like so many who naturally invest in fat phobia, was to absent herself from her own judgment!

the unswerving support of friends and family was critical. They never blamed me or told me to pull myself together. They knew I wouldn’t act this way if I could help it.

She had to get permission from them. Imagine if they hadn't given it to her? Instead, confirmed her view of herself and told her to stay there. Where would she be then?

Anger towards her is righteous enough, but remember, she has to live with herself. I'm truly grateful for that myself. That's punishment enough. She can't get away. There's no respite from the ugliness within and she's quite angry about that. Just like many 'motivated' i.e. self bullying fitness junkies.

Oh the honesty of fatness! Unlike neuroses, which continually flatter to deceive in this kind of way. Weight is metabolic. It cannot be fooled by drugs, sub- therapy bull-shiting.You've either affected your metabolic function, or you haven't. You can manufacture some crude temporary assault-this shallowness ends up being evident....

It's this kind of neuroses therapy, drugs haze merry go round, that gives the impression that something has happened. People like Kelsey expose that utterly. She has learn nothing, except to get herself out of the way of the Leviathan pulling her down and volunteer some other victims for it. As if that will do anything for her dim soul.

In some ways, her feelings are being exploited. Her still raw anguish and rage are hard for her to suppress in the face of those she deems so utterly beneath her. Others want to get at fat bitches and put us in our place just as she does, but know just enough to sense how bad that makes them look.

So, fools rush in, and are rather laid bare. I doubt those who paid her for this effluent give any more of a damn about her dignity than they do the fat people's she's being set upon.

Well, you know what? Not playing daily mail.

This is the kind of thing I've seen so often from fat phobes. And I'm not going for it. I've got better in mind than your repeated attempts to set up a fat versus slim-women. Nope, not interested.

In some ways I pity this Kelsey, no, I really do. That's not undercover contempt. Though if she feels insulted, I'm okay with that. "I have more compassion for MYSELF and others" She claimed.

Call that ambition.

A cure for diabetes? Poverty

Being too poor to eat or more accurately, having not enough food around anyways. Between 1991-5, in the post-soviet shakedown Cuba's ability to feed itself decline. This lead to a population wide fall in consumption of calorie intake and weight of 12lbs/5.5kg on average .

Along with a fuel shortages, which caused people to take to travelling by pony bike and foot, diabetes went into decline. According to boffins, this caused a decline in the level of deaths by heart disease as well as diabetes. Smoking was mentioned, but no matter.

Intriguing given the notoriously better health of richer people. Rather in keeping with an underlying green romanticism about how measures people take when poor are green and need to be preserved.

After 1995;

A rebound in population weight followed in 1995 (33.5% prevalence of overweight and obesity) and exceeded pre-crisis levels by 2010 (52.9% prevalence).

Sort of what happened in many countries post-WW2. That played its part in the weight spikes of the 1960's and 70's, the latter is the real beginning of the modern rise in fatness.

This is what my brain worked out years ago, weight regulation (management) via calorie restriction requires the whole of society on a diet. Yet we're all constitutionally designed to loathe and resist calorie restriction. Furthermore, those less inclined to store weight's interests begin to be diametrically opposed to those who are more inclined to store weight. And the former win.

Individualization of weight loss is not about blame, its about leaving slimz and thinz out of it. The blame is a lever to apply this, not a cause of trying to make calorie restriction private. 

Rather like gastrectomy is the only thing that delivers meaningful weight loss results (to hell with health and too often life obviously). To overcome the high resistance of our design to cal res, you must cut people into it restriction. The parts of the mind that don't run the body, cannot override the parts of the brain and nervous system that do. Or the latter would be superfluous and nature always has a reason.

Society shaped around dieting is key to implementation. The results are another story.

Four years isn't long enough to find out what would happen. There's little doubt in my mind that any longer, would simply reveal other problems. That's the problem with the fashion for either/or assumptions replete in healthism.

The weight loss or undermining of the ability to maintain a higher weight for those who aren't prone to storing fat, would create more of them and more health problems for them. Just as before when they suffered from such societally induced wastage. This is part of fat people's proneness to guilt. The sense that we are shafting them.

That comes from this chosen solution which is insisted upon, no matter what.

That's why some along with myself have pointed out, the best resolution is to find a way of altering the metabolism individually. Dieting isn't that, sorry, it only impersonates it. That should satisfy everyone. Don't want to lose weight? Don't. Want to, do. Slimness can no longer pretend to be a big deal, no class created around weight falsehoods. A block to eating disorders acquired through trying to lose weight through cal res. Yes that's the cause of many ED's, no probably not all.

As I keep saying, manipulating metabolic function is a gateway to better treatment for all issues related to metabolism and use of energy. That includes the possibility of better (actual) mental health treatments-drug free ones. Note I mean real scientific study of actual metabolism and its function, not any pseudo 'obesity' nonsense.

Or we can continue with this derangement.

Hunger/Addiction

I've tried to draw attention to something over the years: Fat people have been spectacularly game.

In a society when people drug everything from their moods to reaching for a pill 'cos they've got a 'ickle head/tummy/butt boo boo. Fat people were told er, *you people are too much, you need to starve and run around till you've expended your largesse.* Then latterly, * you just need to spend your whole life feeling half starved a lifestyle change*.

Our response to this request was: "Okay, if you say our bodies are a problem doc etc., you must be right. You all seem like reasonable nice people. We'll do as you ask!"And we did.

Just. Like. That.

Not only did we accept such an insult to our form and person. We accepted the unnatural and instinctively disgusting plan of weight loss dieting.

Despite this not even this tender-hearted enthusiasm could make such dysfunction viable. Aiming to stay in a state of hunger is unnatural and pathological.That means it moves towards unhealth and ultimately death. Not always that ultimately. Some anorexics actually die the young deaths so many are desperate for fat people to.

But the point is we really, really, really tried, over and over again. Without the millions, yes, millions spent, telling people to put their litter in the bins provided... rather than on the ground...which will then have to be picked up by someone and put in a bin......

We starved, swooned, dieted, sweated, wired jaws, took pills, ran about, had organs banded, re-routed and removed. And that's only some of the least unseemly!

All because you know. When someone tells you on good authority that your body's all wrong and that seems reasonable and you know they're good people, it probably is.

The pathology of open-ended hunger used to be readily understood. And probably still is in countries where starvation is a more current or recent threat. But not in more sophisticated realms, no we aren't allowed to state openly that the cultivation of unending states of hunger is undesirable and unsustainable. The body is well constructed to defend against it.

In lieu of this agreed recognition of obvious fact. There needs to be an explanation for people's now seemingly inexplicable attachment to food.

Addiction.

You do not have hunger-a signal that your body requires nutritional replenishment, mainly made up of energy. No, your hobby of eating has hi-jacked your brain and you are now allowing it to do you the harm of 'obesity' blah, blah, blah shoddy pseudo-science emotive 'addiction' criteria. 

Regardless of whether weight is a real question for you or not, the answer's most definitely not a stat of proto-anorexia. Turns out you have to have some susceptibility for that to be remotely possible. Enough to stay this side of safe and sane yet stay on a diet for life. Who has that? Just be hungry all the time, but eat, unsatisfyingly, things you may or may not wish to eat and don't eat things you may well feel to eat. And go for the burn.

What makes me laugh is that we thought that was perfectly reasonable for so long. Not other people, who could at least preach fatuously in ignorance of your pain and discomfort, whilst taking their pills for oh, just about anything remotely disagreeable to them.....which less face it is many things a whole lot less bothersome than knawing crazy making hunger.

Has any one said hunger can make you crazy? Resisting the pulsing drive to fulfill it can literally drive you out of your mind? Even if you have such a mental block that it feels like you can barely manage to eat? Those recommending it, should try it. For a limited period, just to get a feel of never being free of hunger.

I don't mean no food-that's relatively easy once you get going. I'm talking about eating inadequately, always being dissatisfied, irritable. Eating things you don't want to eat and not eating things you do.

It's not just the psychology, it's the stripping of some emotional ballast. That increases your sense of vulnerability. The absence of the pleasure of fulfilling a necessary drive, properly. You do know the satisfaction of your hunger is part of your daily pleasure quotient? And that when it's undermined you acquire a pleasure deficit? i.e. your mood starts to sink.  In the end you'll be reaching for something to end the torment of tussling with yourself, even more than the actual physical feeling of hunger.

Being ravished by hunger is emotional.

Dodging it is boring. It repeatedly takes over your mind to the extent that you find it difficult to focus on other things. At some point you'll find there's no free bits of brain left to hold other thoughts, so much of it has been taken over by the imperative to just relieve this damn nagging urge. Its the imperative to do something that you cannot (won't) do that's even more wearying than the hunger itself.

Hurting yourself makes you feel very sorry for yourself indeed. The one safe space, yourself is no more. The one person who should nurture take care of you, is the one who's denying you and letting you suffer, for what? It's humiliating. That's the so called shame of eating disorders, anorexia-the way we're always told what genius high achieving in control anorexics are. And the poor 'over' eaters who are just ashamed they eat too damn much.

NO.

They're both ashamed because something that they were born able to do, they've managed to mess up. That it's for your weight, your "health" doesn't mean shit. You can't even eat properly, you can't meet your own needs, you're incompetent enough to have dropped that ball?!

When you are hungry enough often enough, you can forget.....you do forget....in the end you just don't care. You are too beaten and exhausted to carry on. What it for anyway? You just want your brain back, to feel alive again. To know what it feels like not to have that unchanging feeling in the background. To be able to think about something else to be able to feel something else. To not have your mind and body hi-jacked by a primal urge that you're resisting. 

This is what people mean when they allude to food addiction/overeating whether they quite realise I don't know.

Surely not? Surely "food addiction" is excess, but what is excess? Who defines it when weight is deemed the direct indicator of intake? Consider the way weight loss diet defenders think. How they refuse to acknowledge the failure of their favoured strategy, claiming its actually almost 100% success and the fault is fat people lack stoicism.
(*)
If you re-frame hunger as 'addiction' somehow you can re-frame your battle with hunger as an addict resisting the urge to fulfill an acquired craving. This will give you the same magic that addicts have when they go cold turkey (Ummmm turkeeeey). Which incidentally is FN. Well, they can use drugs to help them get off the drugs can't they?

It's a plan. Just like the one where you're supposed to tell yourself its not a diet, it's a "lifestyle choice." It's not hunger, it's addiction. It's not real hunger, look at the size of you! Which means you know, you can take drugs...for your addiction. 

I remember years ago, in my dieting days, becoming intensely frustrated and enraged, considering an overview of ceaseless attempts to get on-and stay on the straight and narrow yet again.

I remember thinking loudly, "the only way I'm going to be able to stick to this is if I was on heroin!!!*^$"

I weighed it up coolly. Heroin is highly addictive-but, having survived so many wretched attempts at self-enforced hunger how bad could it be?

I giggled. I so wasn't going to find out.

I couldn't even take diet pills.

* Decided to take this line out, it could be read as attacking drug addicts. That wasn't my feeling or my point. I was referring more to those who use drugs to ease minor aches, pains or their emotional issues, rather than alter aspects of their character personality or self-use often hiding behind 'illness' for that purpose.Then feel bad about their own lack of stoicism and outsource their own shame to fat people.

The problem with that is not that kind of drug seeking in itself it's that their attitude and framing squeezes out what is a necessary self critique they're avoiding and not resolved in their own minds. What they are saying to fat people displays this.