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.

Thin Women Are Not, And Never Have Been The Enemy

Dear fatphobes,

Kindly cease and desist from using thin bodies to attack fat ones, thanks.

I know you can do this with ease, seeing as you constantly tell us how much self-control you have.

And to clarify, when I say thin I mean thin, not slim-though they aren't the enemy either. Tbh, neither are you really, you're just messing yourself up in the head to the extent of entering your own special needs category.

Anybody who cannot recognise that a person cannot be 'disease' and the "host" of a disease that is themselves, because of defining humans as slim only, isn't entering the game with a full deck.

The notion that the kind of very slender usually very young women who appear on the catwalk harm impressionable gels by their appearance has never been mine for an instant. It has always been a convienient scapegoat and distraction for those who define humanness purely in terms of slimness.

I've never believed nor accepted the sight of a woman as the causal agent of anorexia or any other hunger response issue [yeah, I said that]. But even if it was the case that seeing a thin women triggered young girls to lose weight, proto-anorexia is the only option available. It's not far removed from saying a woman's appearance triggered a sexual assault on them or somone else. And that women's bodies should be covered/not appear to avoid such "provocation."

This from other women has always been largely mischevious, a way of getting back at women who are a size slim women often can't attain due to the punishing privation of the only route of lowering weight. 

That this should be the sole means of inducing weight loss, has been decided by, medical and health care professionals and by societies, acting under their direction, wishing to use proto-anorexia and forced labour to punish fat people and their bodies.

Punishing fat people, means punishing these young girls too. Supporting the former, is supporting the latter.

This is the major cause of revealing the anorexic susceptibility out there, spreading anorexia to become a prescence in demographics where it was largely absent.

Search it.

Anybody who doesn't mention this unequivocally, any time they mention 'eating disorders' or 'body image problems' is at best a lightweight-in the metaphorical sense- or a bullshitter and at worst, in active collusion with unearthing anorexia nervosa in as many people as possible.

Possibly a combination or all of them. 

The price paid for sentencing fat people to starvation and hard labour penance is mainly paid by them, but collateral damage of this is paid by the thinnest people, not least the always forgotten and ignored people who are battling illness and dying because they cannot retain sufficient weight to keep going. 

Medical doctors can go on the media all they want legitimising their eating/exercise disordered, proto-anorexia prescriptions all they want. And before any one tries to play on any pretence of their undivided saintliness on this issue, remember they are currently colluding with and pushing the  mutilation of healthy organs, for the aim of trying to make their favoured practise of dieting stick.

Relying on their politics of respectability-of the his versus her word variety, will only last so long for them. It will catch up with them eventually, hopefully, before too many more people are damaged by their mass sulky quack-ridden brainfart.

In the end, even if seeing a thin woman's body does make a young girl miss a meal, the burden cannot be placed on the often young woman who is often not much older than the young woman with the disorder, or her image.

The burden should be on efficient means of restoring hunger and a sense of balance to the ones suffering from the disorder. The only issue with thinness in the media is if the professional model or actor is under pressure to starve or in other ways abuse themselves to attain or retain and overly low weight for them.

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.

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."

Children Seen as the Weakest Link

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

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

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

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

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

Don't all rush at once.

Basically it's,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass that on to the unsuspecting.

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

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

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

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

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

So alternatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still other food is about celebrating occasions or seasons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appropriating Addiction

I'm having a bit of a Diane Abbott interlude right now. The crude ambushing of an intelligent, highly accomplished Black woman, to put her in the place assigned for her by the British establishment and its hmv media has been as brutal as it is bracing. It's easy to forget yourself, getting caught up in making yourself a safe space for others, only to find that you suddenly cannot defend yourself against them, as effectively as you know you can.

Whether you are targeted and surrounded or no, it's not enough to be on your game. You've got to be on top of it at all times, one chink in the armour and you are a piñata.

Anyway, back to more trivial matters.

"A food addiction has defined my entire life. And it is slowly killing me"

Here’s a list of things I’ve done to try and fix my obsession with eating: four psychiatrists, nine psychologists, two hypnotherapists, three meditation workshops, one hospital stay, 10 dieticians, 18 personal trainers. I’ve moved house 28 times, countries twice, states six times, I changed schools four times. I’ve been on Weight Watchers so many times I’ve lost count, Jenny Craig three times, Dr Cohen’s diet twice, Atkins three times, Mayo Clinic diet once, vegan diet five times. 

This list displays a refreshingly direct grasp of efficacy for this area. You have a problem-real or perceived. You apply a solution to said issue, if said issue remains, you judge the [prospective] solution to have failed, end of story. You then move on.

In the case of calorie restriction, this basic rule is comprehensively rejected. The issue is weight-light or heavyweight- you apply the purported solution to it-calorie restriction dieting. Either you remain the same, or its temporary effects rescind themselves ending with you being back where you started. Ergo-this 'solution' has failed.

That's it, move on to a more righteous path. 

But no, we aren't allowed to. We must not see this failure, we must only see ourselves or our bodies as having failed this godlike principle. This refusal leads puzzled indoctrinates to ask themselves; "Why can't I starve?"

About a decade ago, a group of American psychiatrists studying obesity decided to look into whether some people's anecdotal claims of food addiction could be proven.

Answer; "[It's as if] we are physically dependent on food!!!" Round and round in the same circle. You simply cannot get away from a reality that stark and unyielding. Some of us aren't used to being told no, even by nature.

The attempt to distance the professionals is palpable here but distinctly implausible. Since when do these give a damn about what fat people enough to attempt to illuminate their experience? Unless it can be twisted to fit their agenda- see this is in the number of their pointless and ill conceived rat studies.

Even if you employ metaphors, the comparisons you make must be apt enough to be worthwhile. There's no use in saying I think the term 'football' is "too narrow". It should be broadened to include round fruits like watermelons, later on, if not melons, why not oranges and apples etc., "You hurt me if you don't allow apples in, I like apples. It feels like a football to me, who are you to say otherwise? etc.,"

Subsequently football becomes things that aren't footballs. Rather like disease no longer has an agreed definition due to its promiscuous emotive misapplication.

Real addiction happens because exposure to an outer supply of chemical agents disrupts our body's inner production of chemicals with a similar structure. That inner supply is made totally within us and is sufficient for us, all things being equal.

Even if you ignore the debate ending fact that we have an innate physical dependence on food, addiction doesn't work as a replacement/ metaphor for dependence because our bodies do not make the energy we need to survive, internally.

On that basis, the notion of food as an addiction appears to fundamentally violate the laws of physics, lmfao.

Hunger is the thing ob wallahs are desperate to phase out, denial of fact doesn't end it. The basis of their empire of falsehood is eating is purely a conscious act, like taking drugs or alcohol. No matter how much they seek to reformulate that using different terms.

Making people feel like addicts not only demoralises, depresses and disempowers them-the opposite of what is claimed-it makes it easier to sell them drug abuse. Food is the gateway, we've got better drugs for you.

Like your average neighbourhood junk peddler-but without the honour of not pretending its concern for your health.

Ironically, a more apt example of the unbalancing of internal function, by the introduction of an outer dissembler appeared in that proto-anorexia/anorexia editorial of the other week,

In their article, Gianini et al (2017) report that both individuals with anorexia nervosa and individuals on the NWCR:....Are physiologically primed for weight regain. Both groups have lower resting energy expenditure... than non-weight reduced BMI-matched controls.

Lower expenditure is the product of disrupting your energy metabolism through the bolt-on of extra energy wastage. It's like you've sprung a leak and your body is finding ways to slow down the rate of [energy] loss.

Compulsion on the other hand refers to neural posture that has been assumed by the conjunction of nerves used to carry out various actions and behaviours, to the extent that the action/behaviour is not as voluntary as before. It has become compulsive or a compulsion. That posture requires dismantling.

Again, eating starts from being naturally compulsive. We all in the main, eat the same way, we respond to our body's calls for energy. Hunger is the body's demand for energy, eating is the response to that demand for energy. Notion of 'addiction' to responding to your body's energy demands is redundant. Needing to respond to you vital needs is a given.

The best way to reduce intake of course, is to reduce hunger, thereby reducing the need to respond to it.

As for Melanie Tait, what are we to make of her utterances?

Astonishingly, the jury is still out on food addiction.

She expected this all to be a typical mindless phone-in that makes no sense but that we all submit to unquestioningly as if lies are the same as truth when it comes to certain quarters.  What does she even think 'food addiction' means?

...“substance-use disorders”. Twelve-step programs say an addiction is a physical compulsion, coupled with a mental obsession. Whatever addiction is, an addiction to food has defined my entire life.

How can a "whatever" define anything, let alone your life?

Food is killing me, slowly, clogging my arteries and raising my blood sugar. Increasing my risk of Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes. Still, I can’t stop.

Um, you can feel 'obesity' agit-prop in your body can you? Food does not "clog arteries" that's biological myth, but this isn't really about Tait's experience. It's more about selling this to the impressionable.

They [her parents] don’t believe I have a food addiction. They think I’m weak. That I can’t control myself. That I’m lazy. 

This is an ignorant person's idea of what they think a drug addict would talk about their experience. She even tries the old part of the addict narrative of stealing to feed their habit. In this case, Mel says she stole food from her parents so many times, why?

Most of the time I think they’re right; they know me better than anyone else. Why can’t I just stop eating?

All through this, she keeps clunkingly inserting aspects of the 'binge eating disorder' playbook, hilariously emphasising the ludicrous insistence on 'secret eating' and shame being the biggest telltale. Virtually every fat person feels ashamed to eat at some phase or other. Which calls to mind the desire in this to separate the failure of dieting in fat people from the failure of dieting in everyone else.

 To remind folk, I had a chronic disorder of hyperactive, hyper functioning hunger. When I first heard eating on your own was such a big deal I was genuinely stunned.

I had actually forgotten about eating alone, that's how much of an impression it made on me. If I was forced to name as many as 20 major bad things about hyper hunger function. I'd struggle with more than five obvious major ones, despite that, eating on my own wouldn't make the list.

And that ill conceived checklist consists mainly of, eating more than expected/wanted. So if you want to eat lettuce and you past the chippy and get a bag of chips, because you are hungry, that's supposedly a symptom of 'binge eating'.

But that's a 'symptom' of weight loss dieting. The reason you fail is not because you are 'out of control' its because your body is cleverer than dieting. You don't control your eating, that's a subjective interpretation of how you feel when your intake matches your outcome.

This is the norm, that's why people are so obsessed with telling fat people we're fat........ and greedy and lazy. We have to learn the harmony we feel is shameful and not acceptable. Yet this is the major symptom of 'binge eating'

The experience of genuinely hyper functioning hunger and nervous system was a real problem, not the imagined one fat hating puppet masters so desperately and strenuously want, sorry about that fat phobe Gippettos. There's something vain about this particular fixation.

This interaction is inherently abusive, with professionals seeking to gain such complete control of people that its easily to the extent of those relationship where one partner micromanages the other. What bugs these controllers is the notion that their handlee is doing anything independent.

The notion that you are eating away from their gaze is too suggestive of an inner life and will outside their control.

Fundamentally, the problem with all this the wish to impose their feelings on everyone else. The wish to pretend this is objective and universal. That this hasn't carried the day thus far is what's causing Ms. Tait's/her puppeteers "astonishment".

Binge eating disorder is a lot like 'obesity'. A construct that exists to be fashioned by the dominant fantasies of an already decided narrative. It appears to boil down to two things. Either the hunger generating aspect of weight loss dieting/calorie restriction-exercise bulimia disruption and blow back. It's still not routinely acknowledged that dieting deranges your metabolism and makes you feel like shit, not any "weight battle" with your greedy/lazy character.

When you keep dieting, and trying to diet, as fat people are more likely to, this can become a chronic disruption of its own. One that doesn't abate even between diets.  

There's not enough genuine detail to say whether she's referring to that or actual hyperactive hunger function. It shouldn't be but sadly lies are not conducive to sorting through sometimes elusive symptoms.

Mel has got some issues though. She makes a lot of her seemingly unwilling solitariness and mentions a sort of arrested emotional development. Together with the fact that she does feel her hunger is ferocious suggests she could have a problem with the centre of her brain-where the hypothalamus et al reside. Sounds to me like they could be the same source.

Maybe this is her brain/nervous systems way of pointing to this.

A New Old Life for Gabourey

The mutilation class action suit waiting to happen rolls on latest to step on board is Gabourey Sidibe. All wrapped up in using; self love, body positivity and aiming at straight at Black women as a target market for abuse of the surgical process.

After a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes she decided, no doubt on "medical advice", to go for peace of mind to save potential harm of diabetes playing on her mind. Similar factors went into Angelina Jolie's surgery.

The difference is the extent to which Gabby's story is utterly contrived by those who've striven to deny even the most minimal means of making positive adjustments to metabolic function. Jolie was seeking to head off an increased threat of a real pathology-cancer, though there are arguments about that. Whereas Gabby is doing it to alter function the wrong way, as that's the only way available. 

Everything that happened to Gabby was decided by ideology; being put on her first weight loss diet at the age of 6 by her parents, to the subsequent years of diet, regain, desperately trying to lose gains, until the (partial) nervous collapse of weight loss diet burnout.

With an often continual upward climb having to desperately embark on more wasted years often driving their weight ever upward, into the arms of mutilators.

The article says she'd been trying for 10 years to diet her weight down, as she's 33 that seems to mean she had a few years rest between burnout and that particular tranche of adult dieting career. That's how sane people can happily pay to have their healthy function butchered and feel better for it.

You can feel better for just about anything if what came before is made intolerable enough for you. Though how those falling for this hype will feel when they realise exactly what has been done to them is anyone's guess. My feeling has been the last to comprehend are likely to be the angriest, given what it takes [often unconsciously] to stay on board.

Gabby herself said this is a last resort, that it is any resort for is the decision of those who claim to care so much about health. 

From gun to tape this cult has complete control over you and your life-as a fat person- even to the way you perceive the reality of that. No-one should have this much control, it is as corrupting as it is evidence of corruption.

Getting you to act against your own interests as your default position is why it is a cult in all but name.

Unlike fat activists I say the ace held is not fat phobia, it's blocking the science.

Obfuscation, half-truths, misrepresentation, tendentious interpretation above all, a hegemony of collusion..... It perhaps this along with the extent of mercilessness that may be what ensures they do not get away with this-forever. Using alteration of hunger/appetite as a selling point is all very well, but that helps to point out that cal res is a dead duck,

“My surgeon said they’d cut my stomach in half. This would limit my hunger and capacity to eat. 

My surgeon said indeed! Same old ob wallahs speaking through fat people with their script. Prioritisation of cal res decided the removal of stomachs, this as a side effect reduced the body's ability to generate hunger and changed the way appetite functions. That wouldn't happen if hunger was all in the brain/mind-which is the basis of cal res-which was the excuse for cutting the stomach out in the first place.

They should have started from the point they're selling this mutilation on! The whole cal res experiment-including dieting- has been a waste of time. They would have started from here if they'd had any real interest in actual physiology or an ounce of compassion for real people.

Metabolic function is designed to be altered. It has to all the time just for your body to be able to maintain itself. Its just those in this business prefer to do that what they feel like. And as long as there is no alternative, they'll be able to continue to do just what they can get away with.
Here's the DM's health correspondent,

...they work by restricting amount of food the stomach can hold. With less space to hold food, the patient will consequently consume fewer calories. It involves removing 80 percent of the stomach.

Umm, not half,

"More importantly, the operation stablizes a number of gut hormones which are off-balance in obese people driving them to crave food when they don't need it. It also controls blood sugar levels....

If it's more important cutting out the stomach would be superfluous. As for hormones being "off balance" and the rest of that tendentious nonsense is the case, why is cutting out virtually the whole of a healthy functioning stomach required to 'normalise'? Don't slim people [Gabby's unlikely to become that] have whole functioning stomachs?

And why do many people regain lost weight as their bodies heal and regain function. 

So we can all agree, if you insist on reducing intake that dictates that you  reduce/alter hunger function.

We can also it seems agree cutting a stomach out to achieve this has been an irrelevant detour....

Something of the Occult......

This sense is only getting stronger as increasingly people refuse to heed wise words;

Other people's opinion of me is none of my business.

Years ago, I mentioned that I come from a background where Black magic/witchcraft and such are seen as real forces. Growing up, I figured this was an anthropology of control and manipulation of self, of others and of one's environment.

What I never could feel was any sense about what it felt like internally to be under the influence of such. It felt totally outside my internal landscape, despite me knowing that wasn't plausible. I put it down to cultural disconnect.

The 'obesity' crusade has thoroughly changed that. It's now clearer how what you are constantly surrounded by seeps into you and (re)shapes your mind. Especially if there's little to counteract it. That is happening to people with 'obesity'. Nothing is really opposing it, so it just keeps rolling on, not because it has any inherent merit-it doesn't-but simply due to nothing really opposing its momentum.

I've seen people who are skeptical just succumb to it because it just keeps eroding anything that

Our sense that eating is a response to hunger has been undermined, if not severed in some cases. Our sense that weight is not a choice, we are not choosing not to be 900 pounds any more than we are choosing not to be 150, which for most of us is closer.

'Obesity' is really a cult concerned with gaining control of your mind, how you think, specifically to control how you live.  You can see this in its weird sociology-style presentation of contrived and dubious irrelevant statistics, Xtyx of % people are 'obese' compared with 5/10/40 years ago or hence.

'Obesity' increases risks for x, y and z, it's more associated (by us) with a,b, c, d, what has any of this got to do with a person reversing their weight? That's what this is supposed to be all about isn't it? Supposed to be, but not hardly.

If you point this out, people often struggle to grasp what you're saying. Of course statistics make you weight-manage your addiction, emotional problems, help you diet, lead to weight loss, leads you out of 'obese'. Despite that being the only strategy from before there was deemed to be a 'crsis'.

Any interruption of this, any questioning of this, any disinterest in such suspension of disbelief is spoiling it. Is why its not working. Those most voceferous and noisy in their complaining about extent of 'obese' are the ones insisting nothing but what has failed must be even looked for.

Yes, there's fun and profit in the mix, isn't there always? But there's undoubted collusion from the public. Who've found a deeper connection with these notions about weight than could have been predicted.

Fatness has come to be a reference point for mindless consumption and the wages of.

The real urge is to force fat people specifically to battle with hunger, representing unecessary acquiring of goods. Hence 'overeating' is the "cause" of overweighty. Eating is unmored, a mere habit acquired and gotten out of hand, like addiction.

Pointing out that hunger is generated by your body as a whole, and you either get denial of the role of hunger, or assertions that people eat without hunger. Despite that actually being the target of 'weight loss'. 

'Obesity' claims to be science, but it mostly uses that in the way ISIS or w/e it's called today, uses Islam, to enable it to do what it wants to do anyway, ultimately to gain power over others. Is Islam to blame for ISIS? Is science to blame for 'obesity'? Yes and no.

Both ideologies use their chosen doctrines or should I say, the appearance of them as a means to bypass not simply the critical faculties of others, but their own too, thus enabling a continuation of ideas and actions that conscience would derail.

How many times is the hold of these crusades broken by a person gaining a rational and truer understanding of what was being abused to scupper their critical faculties?

Even the grotesque practise of cutting a person's healthy stomach out feels oddly like an urge toward sacrificial appeasal of the unseen universal retribution people fear. The pretext of "making people feel fuller quicker" is risible, that's well within the functioning of hunger/ appetite. Think of the last time you were hungry and saw something disgusting and lost your appetite.

The hideous and wicked female genital mutilation has a similar underlying logic given for it, ultimately, it tries to put women off the feeling and pursuit of sexual gratification by using pain and discomfort. Rather than finding ways to reduce the sexual impulse, for either men or women.

The constant media reportage of 'obesity' is culiminating in an unwholesome media blitzkreig leading some people's minds to drift further away from the shores of reality. It can be quite disturbing to be around.

There can be something ugly, clawing and desperate about it.

The development of a compulsion diagnosis can be just like this. When thoughts or actions are made to mean or do more than they can deliver, the person can descend into compulsive repetition as the need for fulfilment continues to elude.

Increasingly people are being goaded into crossing the line-or thereabouts-where they are no longer in charge of their thoughts, instead their thoughts are in charge of and are leading them. Even before compulsion reaches this take-off stage, these urges can be at the helm of the person's mind doing the steering. That might explain how anyone could possibly think millions of stomachless people sounds anything approaching sane.

A sub-Frankenstein effort of epic delusion.

All one can say to fat people who are atheists when it comes to 'obesity' constructivism and its crusade is that if you know what it feels like to not share the faith of others, now's the time to let 'obesity' cultists have it, if they get too presumptuous. 

Stand back mentally and physically if necessary from their neurosis.  It's theirs and you are not responsible for it. You are not a cult-whisperer.

No matter who it is, do not feel any compunction about switching off and disconnecting when anyone tries to pull you into their mental orbit. You do not have to meet them halfway, flatter them, or tell them they're well meaning. Just establish clear boundaries on any nonsense, such as mindless litanies of future health and death threats.

No means no and doesn't have to be explained or justified.

Freedom of faith is also freedom from faith.

Behind Our Backs

Here's something for you, "Well-toned Hollywood stars tackle obesity epidemic in Philly" no pun there as far as I can tell. This concerns certain Hollywood folk hanging out in Philly to talk about the "obesity epidemic";

Along with policy makers, physicians, and health advocates, a half-dozen screen stars attended an anti-obesity luncheon in Old City Wednesday, funded by drug company Novo Nordisk.

Uh huh, using food as focal point at a gathering-how unhealthily emeaushunal. I hope its not eating disordered. Discussing your(s and my) life-funded by junk peddlers. Divine. These thoroughly respectable pushers make "an injectable medication to treat obesity".

Truly surprising given weight doesn't require "medication". Adjusting body weight up or down properly requires correct alteration of metabolic function.

I reckon it's more like adjusting your posture i.e. the set of your hips, the carriage of your shoulders, positioning of your head. The issue is not so much a 'set point' as sort of a settled point. Like with your posture. That settles into a certain countenance. This doesn't mean it was destined to be that exact way or that bits of you have to be hacked off or you drugged to alter that.

What you need is an effective approach or technique to reset/retrain aspects of or the whole of it, to unravel the way your body has settled into its default position/ing. We can see our posture in the mirror. Our interventions have a more direct influence on restoring a more vital stance.

Correcting gait by learning to "scan" our bodies internally, for sites of tension, adjusting slightly until it is eased or gone.

Not only can we slowly alter the way our bodies not only look and feel but also, the way they function. When your body is less "collapsed" downward, circulation, flexibility can improve. The efficiency of our digestion and breathing to -reducing tiredness/increasing energy.

The failure of calorie restriction does not herald any need for disease as a metaphor. It signifies diet 'n' exercise is the wrong way to adjust metabolism.

Nor is individual control an issue, any more than in the above. The real issue is the sense that something more than usual is needed. The use of our conscious mind/intent to create effects that then alter aspects of our bodies functioning.

This fundamentally challenges notions of what is within our conscious control. And that has always been a real hurdle.

But that's tough right? Because we fatz have been put in this trap to somehow achieve just that, surely.

Seeking to do things with drugs that you could do with your own mind is deemed "drug seeking" by the professionals. Us fatz are so lucky, we don't have to drug seek, the pharmacorp wish avidly to turn us on.

Isn't that nice of them?

Must be on account us being too lazy to bother with it ourselves. I think we can change or add to the meaning of 'drug seeking' to mean big pharmacopoeia and medicine desperate to get people hooked on junk, whether they like it or not. And believe me, that is the real JUNK here.

So what do they think is the point of all this gassing behind our backs?

The main point of the event, said actress Alison Pill[?] of HBO's The Newsroom, was to emphasize that obesity is a disease.

Slim people love calling stuff 'disease' don't they? So they assume we must love it too. We must have felt so left out all these years watching them doing it, stuck with the seven deadly sins diagnosis. I like the way they think they're throwing us a bone (ha), don't you? Like we get to call ourselves disease. Isn't life grand? A promotion. No longer are we gluttonous parasites, now we're "disease."

Yippee ki-yay. Lets paaaahrtay!!!

Actually not. And people like Ms Pill et al probably cannot absorb this, given we're supposedly always on the hunt for "excuses." You could say, we are highly resistant to their pathologization.

Yes, you might get some fat people to go along with this thinking that its somehow free them from abuse-that's a cheap trick-but you will also have a lot of very underwhelmed people who won't be quiet about that.

Honestly, your love affair with calling things, disease and illness for effect, is stupid and always has been.

Pill continues;

"It's an opportunity to change the narrative about what it means to be fat," Pill said. "It's not a moral failing."

As if 'disease' and 'moral failing' are opposites. Weight is neither moral failing nor disease. Goodness slim people allow themselves to get stupid on this issue.

That "changing the narrative about what it means to be fat," is going around. An attempt by those who aren't to adjust to the distance between real experience and what they seek to press on others. Heaven forfend real live fat people get to say what being fat is about, according to our experience like slimz fully expect to.

I did laugh at this though,

Physicians on a panel at the event said one effective anti-obesity tool is nutrition counseling, but they lamented that health insurers often do not pay for it.

Lol, awwwww. No money to 'treat' food deserts and genes with old rope.

Don't Punk the Function, Change the Destination

I was somewhat aghast at gaining insight into Dr. Sharma's current perspective on metabolic function. Using the spring in elastic as an analogy for the body's resistance to calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL, he tells us again why a failed strategy's failure is the fault of the body,

No matter how hard or how long we pull, the rubber band keeps wanting to bring our weight back to where we started. 

That 'resistence' is homoeostatic in nature, part of the body's own self regulation. It is why though your cells replace themselves many times over your life (cycle), you still remain a recognisably human form.

Fighting that is like fighting the body's instinctive design to restore itself properly. You don't fight your body's natural abilities to self regulate, you use them. If Sun Tzu was here he'd tell you, even if you insist on going to war, that's fighting to lose. The rise in weight over the last 40 years of multi-gazillion ££$$'s slimming, fitness, etc., industries has demonstrated that ably.

That answers "....how do we take the tension out of the rubber band?", we don't. That "tension" is exactly what keeps a person at 8 sts/110 lbs/50 kilos. It isn't the issue. What we do instead is to reprogramme its destination, so it this 'resistence' can deliver and repeat that outcome.

Later, Dr. Sharma explains why CRIWL is more retainable in the longer term, without an intact stomach,

......and we now understand that this has little to do with the “restriction” or the “malabsorbtion” resulting from these procedures but rather from the profound effect that this surgery has on the physiology of weight regain.

I took a WTH take,

.......the profound effect that this surgery has on the physiology of weight regain.

And a third,

...the physiology of weight regain.

Got it. Being cut into starvation makes it easier both to achieve CRIWL and to sustain more of that loss, for longer, though he again puts it with more of a flourish,

.....many of the hormonal and neurological changes that happen with bariatric surgery, seem to inhibit the body’s ability to defend its weight and perhaps even appears to trick the body into thinking that its weight is higher than it actually is.

Yes, surgery hampers the ability to respond to your body's signals even in their acute phases (hello anorexics). That latter reference is interesting, why would the body thinking it is heavier than it is lead it to lower its weight, or assist in that?

Not many "fields" would frame amputation as "hormonal and neurological changes". I don't know much, but I'm sure if you lop off someone's leg, you'll reduce their body's protein and calcium, because a leg has muscle-that's protein and it also has bone and that contains calcium, geddit?

...bariatric surgery helps maintain long-term weight loss by reducing the tension in the rubber band, thus making it far easier for patients to maintain the “pull”.

It increases the tolerance of starvation, yes.  It can also reduce hunger dramatically, until the body heals enough for it to recover. Fat people especially have to waste incredible amounts of self control on CRIWL. Surgery, saves a little bandwidth enabling  that to be invested in maintaining a state of lack. Allowing an outstanding level of discipline to pay off better than intact bodies can usually manage.

I must also say, surgery adjusts the body before which is as I have been saying for years is the right way around to do this.

Metabolism is a bit more like a self driving car. If you want it to only go so far , then do not leave it programmed to go much further out. Alter its destination.

Don't deprive it of enough power to reach its destination, i.e. starving it, hoping it breaks down before it can get (back) to its destination-your starting weight, use its ability to regulate itself.

That can go either way as they say. Further in or further out, depending on where you want the body to end up.

The insistence on achieving weight loss or gain via starvation and forced feeding is unnecessary. Though Sharma gives ample clue as to where this is going,

For example, daily injections of liraglutide, a GLP-1 analogue approved for obesity treatment, appears to decrease the body’s ability to counteract weight loss by reducing hunger and increasing satiety, thus taking some of the tension out of that band.

For example, daily injections of liraglutide, a GLP-1 analogue approved for obesity treatment, appears to decrease the body’s ability to counteract weight loss by reducing hunger and increasing satiety, thus taking some of the tension out of that band.

GLP-1 or glucagon-like peptide 1 is produced in our own gut. I was led to believe that it acts as some kind of break or counteracting force on hunger. Hunger is a metabolic function, it is both affected by our internal environment and the state of our metabolic function.

Though its hardly straightforward to tease out, affecting hunger, will potentially affect the state of overall metabolic function.  What I don't get is why the amount of GLP-1 cannot be increased without introducing it, which runs the risk of compromising internal levels of production. The body is wont to react that way to outside sources of what it produces inside.
Hence why real addiction happens and why substance/drug use is something to be avoided, not courted. The medical profession used to understand this.

Think of it as sprinkling “magic dust” on that rubber band to reduce the tension, which makes it easier for patients to maintain that pull thereby helping them keep the weight off. Of course, both surgery and liraglutide only reduce the tension as long as you continue using them. Undo the surgery or come off your anti-obesity meds and the tension in that band comes back as strong as ever.

Is it just me or does that, especially, the last bit sound like a drug pushers patter? I have to ask for the umpteenth time, why are doctors increasingly determined to turn the public into drug dependents?

Think of it as sprinkling “magic dust” on that rubber band to reduce the tension, which makes it easier for patients to maintain that pull thereby helping them keep the weight off.
Of course, both surgery and liraglutide only reduce the tension as long as you continue using them.
Undo the surgery or come off your anti-obesity meds and the tension in that band comes back as strong as ever.
- See more at: http://www.drsharma.ca/stretching-the-rubber-band#sthash.cUDb5a1j.dpuf

Think of it as sprinkling “magic dust” on that rubber band to reduce the tension, which makes it easier for patients to maintain that pull thereby helping them keep the weight off.
Of course, both surgery and liraglutide only reduce the tension as long as you continue using them.
Undo the surgery or come off your anti-obesity meds and the tension in that band comes back as strong as ever.

Fat phobia is not Real phobia

This site promoting a phobia cure made me smile. No matter how trivial [or self inflicted] the affliction, slimstream always manages to elevate it to the highest of [self] importance. Everything's about status.

What makes this funny is the continued efforts to deny hunger exists or when they admit it does that hunger is real.

This has an extra tang of amusement for someone who spent years battling with unreal/fake/emotional/addictional or w/e they call it, actually real hunger.

Some i-net idiot summed it up when he exclaimed "No one can be that hungry." Not simply conflating a heightened level of hunger with fatness, but any hunger at all [in a fat person].

This astonished me, because I realised the extent of this-it's not happening to me therefore it is not happening.

If I took that as my stance, I'd hardly accept a gotdurned thing. What makes me accept things that don't appear to be about a whole lot to me, is ultimately not that I can imagine or not imagine it happening to me, but a recognition of the impact it is having on the person concerned.

That's about it.

I don't demand proof/disproof of the evident. I don't insist the person must prove they feel and/or cannot stop feeling something.

No ultimately I accept a consistent representation of experience and a sense that what they feel they're feeling is real.

Even when I don't for a second accept any or some aspect of their interpretation of it. I don't play gotcha and pretend that makes them a liar and can be dismissed whilst I make them up.

And you know what? That's usually enough. Actually listening to real people. And no, forcing people to think in certain ways dictated by you, then quoting that back as their voice isn't that.

The genus of the term fat phobia is not the triggering of REAL FEAR by a cue that isn't reflective of the RESPONSE it is triggering. And no, calling that 'irrational', though not strictly untrue isn't helpful.

A famous actor was talking about the moment he was put onto on skyscraper tall rooftop restaurant, only to find himself suddenly feeling as if he was encased in concrete. Was that "irrational"? Not wholly, though he was safe. The point was a reaction had been triggered and took his body over, without his conscious processing or awareness. He had no sense of fearing heights before this.

It's a mechanical effect, but it is real. 

The source of fat phobia like homophobia comes from xenophobia, aversion to strangers, indeed difference. That is allowed to turn into prejudice, disgust and yes fear. Do you really need to hear how some people increasingly refer to and talk about Muslims for example? Muslims, you know the ones who translated and incorporated the ancient Greek texts into their culture schema, the same ones modern western civilisation is supposed to have grown out of?

Like this genus of phobia, fat phobia is a choice. Its reality is maintained by a continuous effort of will by the person. Some people seem to feel they need enemies to get themselves out of bed in the morning. No wonder this pretence of energy, energy, energy is so popular amongst those who feel dead inside.

It is to give yourself a false feeling that you have reason to attack those who've posed no threat to you. When folk are desperate enough to misbehave without the guts to just do it, they'll perform all sorts of contortions to manage and suppress their conscience.

They know better, but do not wish to do better.

Incidentally,

This ultimately led to unscientific starvation processes and life-threatening surgeries. In particular, the female section of the society started developing chronic and uncompromising eating habits such as anorexia and bulimia.

Note the use of women to back up "unscientific" before any fat feminists get too outraged, that is exactly the tack used to suppress the voices of fat women, by many calling themselves feminists.

Starvation is the only route to weight loss given by those calling themselves scientists. That is why anorexia and bulimia are taking off, as means to achieve starvation and consequent weight loss. That this is deemed science is why fat people took it on without question-we're all used to scientists giving us objective rendering of what is real.

That people could use science merely to establish and perpetrate a false view is something many are simply not ready to contemplate.

"Anti-fatness" is being spread and used by the 'obesity' cult to put its real agenda/s into effect.

And I'm sure fat phobia could be eliminated in five seconds in most people. It simply requires the end of defining fat people as disease. Nor is there such thing as "obeseophobia". That's like saying slutophobia, the phobia is rooted in the construct before it.

The other kind of phobia is real, it is the trigger that is false in the sense that it isn't commensurate with the kind or extent of response. Curing this is a matter of changing the response to that cue. Dismantling fat phobia is about deciding to no longer support it.

Accept bodies come in different sizes and that if you wish to change that, you need to understand the body, not abuse the person. Stop conflating humanness with slimness, which means anything to do with fat people falls outside that in your mind.

Restore being human as the means of deciding humanness. It's that simple, because fat phobia is that contrived.

One and All

There's no substitute for competence. A cold manner with a real grasp of a subject and ability to apply reason to practicalities, is above, the same old, same old + bags of charm any day. Way above. An article on anorexia gives an insight as to how well meaning is not much cop without useful intent.

It reports claims of an addition to "ground-breaking" treatment for anorexia;

Adults with anorexia often have distinctive traits that lock them into a destructive relationship with food. But those same traits could help them manage their illness

"Manage their illness"? Why would anyone want to manage anorexia? I thought Kenneth Tong, possibly inadvertently, summed up the 'obesity cure' pretty well. Anorexia isn't a choice though, its an unusual response to what can be an attempted choice- sustained calorie restriction.

Incidentally, can we have a discussion about the death of cure, as an aim? Since when did the aim of medical science become "management"? Management was something you did whilst you were looking for a cure. What falls short of management? Management as the endgame strikes me as a desire to make money off sickness and disorder. It's throwing in the towel, in some cases, before entering the ring.

Anorexia has no real treatment, instead anorexics are made to eat until they recover weight. Basically [coerced] gainerism, like those who force feed themselves to get fat or fatter. Those surrounding the person act as "encouragers" that is people who literally exhort/support this dieting up the scale. You'll note this is the same pattern as the 'obese cure'-countering pathology with a counter pathology=balance. It's not only that stupid, it requires the false creation of fatness as a pathology in order to press it into this brilliance.

The reason enforced eating is amazingly effective in reversing anorexia- given it is not really a treatment-is in the nature of metabolic function. Hunger and its response-eating-is our natural default, its instinctive, literally a no-brainer. Deciding not to respond can be a direct conscious act. Anorexia is triggered by calorie restriction, according to the article, it also has a potential hormonal trigger. Any period of calorie restriction- including illness, stress-if that shuts down the digestive system and reduces hunger- can set it off. Presumably what weight loss gastrectomy can partially mimic the this digestive stasis in anorexics when the stomach is removed.

This goes along with the added momentum of going from pathology to health. Whereas starving fat [or any] people goes from where they are, to derangement, disorder using pathology, whether they start at health or not. That some can manage to lose weight and feel better is an advert for finding the proper way to do it. 

Not that this extent of success is deemed good enough for those who care about anorexics though, they expect far better than to have to fight an ailment for life, well meaning doesn't surpass ideological concerns/vested interests.

Across the field, psychologists, psychiatrists and dietitians have noted that positive treatment outcomes for adults with anorexia remain abysmally low. Less than half recover fully, another third show some improvement, but the rest remain chronically ill.

Read that first line again, that is what well meaning looks like. And if fat people had those odds? They'd be few fat people, we've spent lifetime chasing statistical insignificance in the form of a pathology.

Also, notice, this isn't costed. Nothing is too much for these precious folk.

The actual experimental treatment featured is based on the family therapy model pioneered at the Maudsley hospital. This version gets anorexics to nominate several people they love to cede complete control of their eating too. More than encouraging, they become the person's hunger.

This gives them no control whatsoever, despite; "Responsibility for recovery would remain firmly in each client’s hands..." That is supposed to produce "abysmally low" results. A potential client inadvertently summed the equation up beautifully;

“I need this to work,” she said. “I have nothing else to try.”

The old "rock bottom" cretinism.That's how people take out loans to get their stomachs cut out. They leave you with nothing and call it "personal responsibility." When exhausted by the failure of this, you then submit to anything on offer. You are not directing their 'science' or their preferred treatment models. The power these people have is as awesome as the power you don't have.

Peer Review indeed.

A real cure for anorexia would be to reboot hunger functioning. That would not only be humane but cost-effective and individualised in a way that would quickly become collective. What truly works for many of those concerned, works for society as a whole.

It could also inform the bringing down of heightened hunger. The denial of progress in one area tends to stymie it elsewhere. There's an on-going discussion among techno-pioneers, whether we should be scared about intelligent technology becoming more powerful than us and making us its slaves.

I used to think they were away with the fairies. But now I wonder. A real fear is the refusal to deal with the way the body actually works, this refusal to resolve issues. The giving up. The costs imposed by these inefficient and/or ineffective treatments, is what threatens to "bankrupt" health care, whatever the system.

The people who produce the science are the people in control of this denial and by the time they've finished with us, I'm wondering if we'll have regressed to such an inferior state that we'll be fit to be directed by our microwaves and mobile phones. How can we refresh, re-boot and put them on standby, but not our own functions that have merely got out of hand?

Imagine if every time any feature went wrong with your computer, that you couldn't do a damn thing about it? FGS, mentally speaking we will suffer by comparison. We probably already are.

If your computer freezes, you can reboot it. If you don't and run around trying to borrow someone else's. You can be said to have declined "personal responsibility". Because you had an option that was within your individual power, that will suffice to unfreeze your screen more often than not.

You don't have to regress to childhood and cede control to your family. Nor to wait for society to rearrange itself around restrictions that will disadvantage those most in control, who often don't want them but pretend to.

Unless and until anorexics or anyone else has that, their so called "personal responsibility" relies on chance, between the operation of the body's organisation and individual response at any one time, neither of which are direct individual or any other CHOICE. This model of denying individual agency, dumping a pretence of responsibility without power on the individual, blaming them for any failure, whilst professionals get paid for this, is curdling health care.

The doctor within is the greatest doctor, but it needs direct and intelligent manipulation. That probably requires real ground to be broken by the looks of it. Spare the flummery dressed in a shower of sub-biochemical jargon.

Failed Approach Tax Levy

Yeah, the promise of big fat coffers tantalisingly await 'obesity' dealers.

Government skittish about sugar taxes?!* Cancel that! George Osborne, UK Chancellor announced a 2 year post-dated sugar tax on fizzy drinks in his annual budget.

The turnaround was an effort to shield himself from immediate blowback on the more controversial elements of his proposals. Such as cutting financial support for disabled people or whether his accounting adds up or not.

No wonder folks refer fondly to this as politricks.

The hiatus is supposed to give fizzy pop merchants (type that without laughing) a chance to "reformulate" their products to comply with sugar fearing fanatics barmy dictates. The last macro-nutrient these experts turned into public enemy no.1 was fat. Unfeasibly low levels were demanded to give us all eternal life and save healthcare £££'s [do their promises evah?]

Food producers replaced fat with sugar and "unhealthy" saturated fat with "healthy" polyunsaturated fats in the form of vegetable oils. Then trying to substitute animal fats their chemists ingeniously found that if you hydrogenate veg oil, you get solid, fats, trans fats as it turns out.

Oh sugar!

Now there's supposed to be a sucrose epidemic. Au secours!

It's sugar not fat is the cause of all ill health [and probably evil], despite producers already withdrawing from previous levels, when nobody was fat. Remember when you could see the sugar in a digestive biscuit? Arguing about sugar levels just feels like validating this nonsense. No reason will suffice anyhow.

Give this time, sugar'll make a comeback in some form, just like fat. 

Braying public health agitants gain zero humility from any of this. Food is still the cause of weight, except it isn't. Weight amongst other things, is decided by an individual's metabolic function.

The response to this news falls mainly between; personal responsibility. Fat people must be blamed has managed to become the last stand of western style free will. The other is, companies have a duty to reduce the sugar in their products. This tends to be presented as conservative/libertarian versus nanny-state liberal/leftists.

Fiddlesticks.

They're the same team. The ob cult specialises in creating these empty polarities.

Not only do both cast fatness as inherently blameworthy and blame fat people for being. They support the framework that created this levy. 

If you insist weight must be lost via inducing calorie deficit, it's hard to see how you think this sort of thing can be avoided. If a quarter of the adult population could induce themselves into a permanent proto-anorexic state, that would reshape the food business, putting certain business out of business.

A loud hangry mob who would trample over your rights in pursuit of a society shaped around helping to hold them as much into sub clinical state as possible. Some might say you've got part of that with slim people. Not that they are hangry. Just enjoy making sport of people.

The intended outcome of product "reformulation" and what the "child obesity strategy" will likely be about, unless it consists of putting together a crack team of real scientists who intend to do some proper science and aren't beholden to the 'obesity' cult. 

If you insist on the imposition of calorie deficit, which way of achieving the same thing is more humane? Ordering companies around and taxing them + rearranging the environment? Or pressing and setting up milliolns of people for failure, undermining them mentally and physically in the process? 

The first scenario-millions of permanent proto- anorexics isn't likely to happen. Ergo, "individual responsibility" has its cake and continues to have it, whilst the pressure on individuals continues to rachet up....... until what? You criminalize fat people? Don't laugh too hard, social workers are already involved. That's some of your 'costs of obesity' right there.

Don't ask anyone to cry for the food biz, they didn't defend people. They didn't step up. They didn't question the framing of weight.  Indeed, they too invested in it looking to make money.

Hoist with your own petard, sugar fizz.

The food biz could have made clear that its products are not to be demeaned nor used to insult and degrade people. That's still an option by the way. If your products are shit, make them better. If they aren't, do not allow them to be spoken of as if they are. Trouble is of course, the food biz does itself no favours by continually degrading many of its offerings with cheap substitutes for proper ingredients for profit, just saying.

Fat people on the other hand fall over themselves to implicate their own behvaiour; "We don't eat right/ eat too much/eat when we aren't hungry" and so on. I notice this because I always do notice the gap in this area. 

Listing fat people's purported failings makes a person feel exempt from said flaws. But if this is all 1st world problems (no I don't approve), then logic dictates those reporting this have to assume they're just as "free will" shirking themselves. Little could illustrate that better than trying to dump your real or perceived flaws on someone else, to make yourself feel better. 

In comparison with fat people's immediate uncritical embrace of weight loss dieting, incredible dedication, tenacious refusal to give up on it and stoicism in the face of defeat.

I make no bones [har] about being against this tax. Its an opening sortie in funding the parasitic 'obesity' industry-that still includes a lot of its "research 'n' science". Its real aim is to perpetuate itself. Producing nothing of any earthly use to the people it gave the world permission to despise.

If it gets away with this tax, the demands will continue and become more expansive. Why indeed should soft drinks makers pay a sugar tax when there are numerous other 'products' that contain sugar, namely fruit for one. Aaaaah but that's the good kind of sugar.....but not if you're paleo/sugar low. Even fruit has gotten caught up in the dead end that is food=weight.

I confess to having lost track of this explosion of nutritional nonsense.

Your body should be levied too. It converts a large part of your diet into a form of sugar in order for it to be available as energy. The sugar-is-poison crew don't tend to bother much with that.

Taxing food taxes the poor, not because only poor people eat sugar, merely that they consume it at all.

Men's weight is rather uniform across class, it is women's that varies substantially between the richest and poorest. My view on weight and socio-economic class is the fattest overall are not an official class per se but where the aspiring working and lower/impoverished middle classes meet. 

They tend to be permanently overstretched, overtaxed but also pressurize themselves and carry a certain shame that often comes from aspiring toward better (ergo, the implication being, what you are isn't good enough) along with the loss of as firm a sense of place. Not fitting into the class that matches your income nor that which you aspire to.

It's not bad to be there. But you can get lost in the pressures that are on you, in you, shaping you.

These kinds of chronic underlying stresses lead to shifts in the functioning of your body, i.e. altering your taste buds to favour sweetness. This is body led, your tongue is merely the end point and facilitator. It is instinctive coping and survival. It has nothing to do with "comfort eating" which is another dubious mis-conceptualization.

This is likely what's behind Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier speech were he talks of the poor wanting something a bit "tasty" rather than bland food advised. Food tastes different in different mouths and even within the same mouths in differing contexts. He too, like many of his counterparts today assumed it was purely about pleasure.

The more free range working class tend towards thinness. Though I cannot confirm it totally, there may be a greater use of eating disorder techniques, such as making yourself sick to help stablize weight, amongst better off women. There seems a lesser chance of multiple stresses, fewer insecurities, financial etc., makes it less likely that you'll fatten.

"Healthy food is more expensive" is not my personal experience. Cooking skills, styles and appetites are as diverse in poorer people as in the better off. The pretense that because poorer women seem to be fatter overall than the richest women is less down to the food eaten than the way their bodies are functioning though both reflect the contexts that they live in.

That's why some slim down when they get famous/better off. They are out of that milieu, their body's workings shift. 

The culture of shame surrounding food means people feel on the back foot when it comes to anything to do with eating. There's a sense of having to excuse and justify what you eat. Though I do think there is something in the food desert thing. I'm not sure the full story's been told on that one. It might be better to say that if you are middle class, there tends to be less need for you to have to be able to cook.

If you are poor, that is more likely to put you under immediate duress.

Healthy is more expensive is popular as few bourgies of any political hue can tolerate the fact that it takes more skill to survive in poverty with any balance, than it does in wealth.

The belief that the poor require nutritional "education" comes from the assumption that poor people are stupid/ ill educated (by their class right?!) If you are brought up eating certain kinds of things that's your 'education'. That's no different than other people eating what they've been brought up with. I was brought up the same way, I wasn't "educated" about food, I didn't need to be. My mother fed me mainly on food cooked from scratch, centered on fresh produce.

Weight disparities among some poorer groups of men and women can match those between poorer women overall and the men in their group, double. That would not be so if food was the 'cause' of weight.

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.