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.

Takes the Biscuit

In "What cookies and meth have in common", Richard A Friedman, "professor of clinical psychiatry and the director of the psychopharmacology clinic at the Weill Cornell Medical College" is trying to flog "food addiction".

First though the origins of this term are worth perusing - there's evidence of professionals seeking to dump this on their usual patsies, hoi polloi.

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.

Anecdotal eh?

The idea of food addiction, far from being something new, was first proposed by T.G. Randolph in a 1956 paper, “The descriptive features of food addiction; addictive eating and drinking.”

That paper is not available to view. It seems to include alcohol which is no longer seen as a food [as well as a drug] but probably was then. I had no idea this came from a professional source. Friedman again,

Neuroscientists have found that food and recreational drugs have a common target in the “reward circuit” of the brain,

Wow. There's no comparison and I'm sure he knows this.

All rewards — sex, food, money and drugs — cause a release of dopamine

Meeting your body's energy needs-eating- is not so much a reward as rewarding. The release of chemicals like dopamine express the usefulness of energy to the body, along with any other life-enhancing or worthwhile activity.

Drug abuse on the other hand beats the ever loving crap out of neural (and other) structures like reward circuitry in the course of bringing about its effects.

...the gentle impact of natural opioids, produced by our own bodies, resembles a summer breeze compared to the hurricane of physiological disruption caused by drugs designed to mimic their function.

It's like the difference between exhaling and vomiting your guts up, eyes teary and with bust blood vessels, nerves shredding vibrating with the effort.

The drug’s ability to release high levels of dopamine rapidly in reward areas of the brain produces the "rush" (euphoria) or "flash" that many people experience.

Evidence of low D2 receptors in the case of drug users or addicts is largely down to damage done during the process of drug taking. These drugs are classed as "neurotoxins";

Dr. Volkow discovered that people addicted to cocaine, heroin, alcohol and methamphetamines experience a significant reduction in their D2 receptor levels that persists long after drug use has stopped.

Versus the origins of lower D2 levels identified in people who are merely fat/ter,

In a 2010 study, Diana Martinez and colleagues at Columbia scanned the brains of a group of healthy controls and found that lower social status and a lower degree of perceived social support...were correlated with fewer dopamine receptors, called D2s, in the brain’s reward circuit.

A significant reduction versus fewer. This study's findings are consistent with others showing this tendency can cluster among families regardless of their respective sizes. I also have to go back to that low D2 and the functionality of such as the reward circuitry, "Dopamine is involved in.... (pleasure from natural behaviors such as eating)".

If your life is less rewarding than it might be is a lessening of these receptors sign of a circuitry that's not being overly used? Use it or lose it as they say.

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. 

"Weight as Disease" = Munchausen's-by-Proxy

"Accepting the concept that obesity is a chronic disease process is important for several reasons,"

Oh what a tangled web is being woven.

There's far more to being asked to swallow a false "concept" than meets the eye [is that noshing on ya fees?] You are being asked to pretend you are a disease/sick when you aren't either. How could you even be the former, you might ask? May I remind you of "food/eating addiction".

A refresher- the American Medical Association's attempted declaration;

That our AMA: (1) recognize obesity and overweight as a chronic medical condition (de facto disease state) and urgent public health problem

It should be said that even if the latter point were true, it would make no odds. A disease is a disease whether it's a purported "public health crisis" or whether it's affected 5 people in the history of record.

Terms, medical ones certainly do not exist for their potential to warp minds and manipulate emo's. Pretending to be sick/unwell/unhealthy when you aren't any of those things is not only a lie, it's a diagnosable condition. It's called Munchausen's Syndrome, more recently named factitious as in presenting fiction as fact.

Factitious disorders are conditions in which a person deliberately and consciously acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she is not really sick.

This is of course what the AMA is in effect demanding of every person above a BMI of 30 actually 25 as it includes the term "overweight". They never thought of this, there's little to no sense of consequence when entering this particular playpen.

The interesting rub here is that it is in a sense 'obesity' crusaders, the AMA included, who have the Munchausen's, what they're seeking to do is to force people under their influence and charge to act this out. That puts them under the influence of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a mental health problem in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care, such as a child, an elderly adult, or a person who has a disability. Because vulnerable people are the victims, MSBP is a form of child abuse or elder abuse.  

Holy Farka Touré. How much does that not sound like this imposition? That's it in a nutshell! Mental health problem eh? Ha, ha, they said it!

Difference is instead of developing MS personal inclination or neurosis, you're having it forced on you, which is even more peculiar. MSBP has always been a tad controversial. The typical scenario-though this makes me think that's a stereotype-is a mother pretending their child is sick by manipulating them physically or injuring them to produce what could be deemed symptoms.

In that case it seems to be the extension of the womb, lack of separation between mother and child, whose being deemed an object that belongs to her, even still a part of her. In the case of 'obese' because that's wholly a creation of slimz, it's as if we are in their heads as a product of their imagination.

I must admit, on first hearing, I dismissed it on sight as a form of abuse given a fancy name. I can't remember when I caught on, though I can say the crusade brought it to mind. The enigma has always been motive. The motive for MS has been to draw the kind of sympathy and attention we associate with being unwell, but what's gained by using a proxy as a vehicle for fake illness?

Factitious disease is defined as the intentional production (or feigning) of disease in oneself to relieve emotional distress by assuming the role of a sick person.

Which is exactly the payoff that's being sold to BMI 25+. 

"First, it removes the feeling that patients alone are responsible for their excess weight.

That's what they've got from years of the fatsphere, desperation to evade responsibility, despite spending a lifetime going out of our way to accept it fully in the most painful and ego-immolating ways.

They cannot see further than what they want. See all the insistence that doctors are not at the head of promoting this mess along with "obesity researchers". They are just affected by society's bias, rather than their professional standing helped legitimise and increase the state of rage that is the norm. Without the medical profession 'obesity' would be the joke it is.

I can say this confidently having predicted they'd weasel out of their responsibility for this ordure. Once the stank gas is loose, they claim only to have smelt it not to have dealt it.  

So in addition to being asked to adopt anorexia, exercise bulimia, body integrity identity disorder we are being asked to pretend to be sick, 'cos people will sympathise with us.

Trashing the worthless 'obesity' construct and getting back to concentrating on a proper science of metabolic function would do that far more completely. 

Not that I believe people will sympathise with fat people. You cannot feel for an object. Anyway, fat people don't need sympathy, they need people to stop being raving arseholes.

Subtle difference.

Now you may doubt this sort of diagnosis. I think that's a fair and valid instinct. Amateur diagnosis is almost invariably a bad idea. In this though, you have to recognise an unprecedented uniqueness.

You've got a group of people who have little real interest in their already contrived subject, who have other agendas, who refuse to ground it in the science of physiology and are openly disinterested in resolution. Instead they impose their peculiarly alien subjectivity on those who have no real desire for it.

Ergo, that's all that's on show, virtually all the time. 

The constant airing of their psychological hang ups without proper science and progress to distract from that ensures glimpses are hardly fleeting.

The refusal not simply to do the science, but also to completely impose whatever's knocking around in their heads on others, also means those 'others' have the right to say, this is what you are telling me about yourself. This is why you are wrong, this is why people change course when something doesn't work. Not doing so ends up with this sort of thing. The thing that might moderate that being absent, personal cost.

That's using proxies for you.

sssmokin'

A feature of the tendentious body-wrecking crusade that is 'obesity' is its virulent infection of false equivalence, i.e. when smoking is treated as if it is like weight.

Now if it need be said for the easily offended, I do not feel superior to smokers, I don't hate them, look down upon them-unless they come with their specific or general tired fat phobic shizz, m'kay?

I reject this because it is false. As we have all witnessed regardless of stance, the 'obesity' field *lols* lies with a feeling of impunity that would shame all but the most dishonest.  So I'm sure that all conquering fact will hardly suffice.

What this has played up about smoking is the difficulty of apt comparison with it.

Smoking is errr..... somewhat of an eccentric activity. Even those committed to it, I'm sure would admit, considering sucking smoke through a lit tuber into your lungs [or throat for you pussycat puffers] and exhaling it with varying degrees of artistry-would be dismissed as fanciful, if it hadn't already been invented.

I don't know why this hasn't occurred before, but a better comparison is probably with a taking-drugs-for-phony-disease habit. I'll be blunt because I can't be bothered to tippy-toe today [yes, I do try, usually].

Percentagewise, few people are truly mentally ill, which I'd define as having a malfunctioning nervous [or other] system leading to symptoms of psychosis, or neurosis at the point where it enters that realm.

Like virtually every diagnosis that isn't rigidly objective, mental illness has been expanded to the point where it diagnoses those who are either experiencing an apt response to emotional/mental/physical trauma or temporary complaint/condition that's mostly a product of their own self- mismanagement.

Given human ego, the latter is intolerable to many if not most people, especially if they think rather highly of themselves. Though there's much pompous moaning about treating mental like physical illness, virtually no-one has a problem with the idea that in their lifetime, they might injure themselves physically in a way that is mainly their fault.

I for example most definitely made myself way more depressed than I'd have needed to be for longer than I'd probably ever experienced through my long term commitment to a fight with my hunger function, plus the attendant playing 'obese'. 

One way people have sought to deal with this very interesting psychological conundrum i.e. vanity is to erm, insist their neurosis/mental illness is a disease, because mental illness/crisis can make you feel become quite dysfunctional.

You see where I'm going. This is felt by those keen on this to express and validate their suffering as well as express their frustration with not being able to throw off their particular issue/s.

The fly in the ointment is, insisting mental troubles are 'disease' is inherently a downer. In the worst kind of way, it boxes you in. It's a trap of despair. The urge then becomes to find a way to lift that gloom, by taking pills.

Though much touted as 'treatment' for mental illness, their primary power is in the belief that the person is treating-therefore not diseased [temporarily], not trapped in a snare of their own making. That is the kind of self-mishandling that make us fall into a pit of neuroses, along with susceptibility of course.

It could be argued that this cognitive dance is similar to the imaginative hook of smoking as described most famously by the late Allen Carr. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his central theorem that smokers dependence on snouts is a product of them having imagined/convinced themselves that they are hooked on smoking.

Effectively, they're smoking to relieve the anxiety caused by the belief that they need to smoke.

It's easy to snicker, but actually, I'd lay good money that every single human being on earth lives exactly that same trap in some way or context, probably loads of them. Affairs of the heart for example, are a minefield for this sort of cycle of tendentiousness. 

So when 'obesity' hucksters and medics pretend weight is disease, they are setting up that very trap. Whatever drugs they have on offer-e.g. Topiramate, an anti-seizure medication are there to lift the gloom caused by the disease pretence. In case anyone's thinking, how is 'obese' supposed give you seizures-not even 'obesity' quacks are pretending that one [give 'em a chance!!]. 

No, you're supposed to take anti-seizure medication because it has been noted that some people taking it for their actual seizures happen to lose a few pounds-and I mean a few-as a side effect. So brilliantly health-sensitive 'obesity' hustlers think that's reason enough for people who have no seizures to take it.

In conjunction with a "healthy lifestyle".

There's another similarity in that drugs such as these also give organs like your liver and kidneys extra work, rather like smoking.

And smokers can afford a certain superiority over the 'health' establishment because they are only accused of taxing their lungs-not removing them. Unlike the "life saving" 'obesity' crowd who like to remove healthy functioning organs.

Not only that, many of us have made the argument that health cannot be the simplistic, add a brick of pure healthy action take it away for a unhealthy action. It's more of a balance of competing and at times incompatible factors.

But no-one would go as far as bariatric surgeons stating that directly removing health increases it. A brand new health protocol.

In fact, those self-harmers who cut themselves can feel a certain validation, given those involved in health and medicine-45 agencies no less-think mutilation-not merely cutting yourself is a route to health.

'Obesity' Promotion Drunkards

If you've ever tried to talk to anyone that's absolutely hammered, you'll know the difficulties in attempting to communicate with them. I do not mean someone who's squiffy, I mean falling down drunk. You cannot guarantee that they'll understand even a simple sentence like: "The cat sat on the mat."

Not because they lose language facility, but due to you being unable to know which if any of those words will register in terms of comprehension. They may understand "cat" but not sat, on the or mat. Furthermore, if you said that three times, you could not predict that they'd mis/understand the same things one, two or even three out of three times.

That is the nature of the mind of someone who's throughly sozzled and, someone who's under the influence of the 'obesity' ideology. 'Obesity' malarkey intoxicates minds,

“Obesity is costing the NHS £16bn a year. We at Obesity Action Campaign are alarmed by this. Obesity causes cancer, diabetes, heart disease and liver cirrhosis. It is the HIV of our age. It is killing millions of our patients,” he said.

That's Dr. Jude Oben. I left the link to his website as in the video featured on it-a 2012 interview with Sky-he can barely keep a straight face. The man has laughing eyes and nearly corpses at the start and especially the end of the interview- whilst trying to convince that millions dying, millions dying. Never once telling the interviewer that he is one of the costly dying ones. Which is lucky because he appears in on the joke too.

Oben goes on to tell us that he is raising awareness *puke*.

No one bothers to tease him about why he has to raise awareness of millions dying. Of why we wouldn't have noticed "the HIV of our age." It's the usual 'obesity' spiel, with one of my faves, predicting that in so and so years, 'obese's will be 50% of the population.

In other words people like himself will be just as much or even more useless than they are now. That is their plan of course and pretty much has been for the last few decades.

How much longer will we allow them to get away with this do you think?

Putting 'Obesity' First

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Note how 'obesity' comes first.

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.

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.

Managing What Exactly?

The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals HATE fatness and want it desperately to end, right? A fat body is inconvenient, tiresome work making indulgence AGAINST THEM;

Just moving her onto the operating table required an additional team: the table was too narrow and the straps too small. One even dislocated his shoulder while performing a cesarean on a 400-pound patient.

And blah, blah, we've heard you.

The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals desperately need the existence of fatness to cease, m'kay?

So what's this about?

But we should be managing obesity even more aggressively, as we do elevated blood pressure and diabetes.

What this “managing obesity” Let alone ‘aggressively’ to consist of?

How can you "manage" what you only wish to get rid of?

There are two main ways of looking at the concept of treatment. A cure that takes time to implement, hence whilst you're receiving say a course of anti-biotics, you are receiving treatment- that is, the cure.

Then there’s when you have no cure and take substances and/or use techniques to palliate or suppress the symptoms of an ever present pathology. 

The latter fits into "management," because, no cure so you have to manage the pathology, but what could this possibly translate into when it comes to the fiction of fatness as dis-ease? The issue is tissue-  what would palliating or suppressing that after the fact amount to? You can only stop the formation of said tissue or reverse it.

Seeking to stem further gain, has never been an aim of the crusade and anyway, what's the method going to be? Calorie restriction. Using that to stem gain is a further admission of the impotence of that strategy.

The current situation has been arrived at in thrall to theoretically trying to stop formation of adiposity with dietary restriction or much more attempting to starve it out of existence after the fact.

Continual denial of this a continuation of the same delusion. 

You cannot “manage” adipose "like blood pressure or diabetes," what's that going to be, yo-yoing everyday, from 400lbs to 200lbs? Do the authorities have a way to do that up their sleeve? Or how else to guarantee any lowered weight will be synchronized with need for medical attentions?

Managing risk of what people choose to link with fatness would not depart the advice given generally for diet and exercise. Medics issue is not with those association which they mainly use the threat of as a lever of influence, it’s with bulk.

Managing bulk aggressively is an oxymoron, you either stop or reverse, or you do nothing. That's has been up 'til now, aggression leads to aggressive fall-out. More weight gain for everyone overall, along with more eating disorders and neuroses too.

One of the sadder research and development aims of big pharma in recent decades is their propensity for rent seeking. Leaving pathological conditions in play in order to sell temporary relief/reversal-to maximize profit over the long term, if not a person's life time. 

As bad as that is, at least it tends to be in the form of pills or some contraption or other. Expecting people to be on a perma diet, i.e. lifestyle anorexia is not a viable option. Hence the whining. And segregation of fat people? Seriously? Where will the dividing line be? How will you measure who goes to the normal or the fat hospital?

No, you actually have to do the work and find a way to get the body to cool its heels vis-a-vis storing lipids. That means you either deal with the mechanics or you don’t.There are no short cuts. No easy routes, no old faithfuls, this needs to break new ground.

White coats need to get it through their heads, fatness is too honest for the old sleights of hand. Their silly attempts to keep trying to pressing it into categories that give them scope for the usual mess  around, neurosis, eating disorder, addiction, psychological booboo etc.,  aren't there.

Dream on or get on.

Dr. Sharma Says: Get off Your Knees Fatz

Well, well, well. Here's one for you self hating fatz types especially. Your friend Dr. Sharma is finally admitting that if you do not stop playing 'obese' and divest yourselves of unremitting shame, you'll continue to get what you've already gotten-the sharp end of a very long pole up your posterior end;

the only thing that will change this is when people living with obesity stand up for themselves and get “engaged”....

Got that?

We tried to tell you! Fat people's acquiescence to abusive handling is why we are in the dirt and continue to be, not due to any occasional outbreaks of resistance. If you've spent your life in abject surrender-and that brings you wrath-then surrender is the problem not the solution. No matter the dissonance that provokes in those who can't tell the difference between what feels right-because they're doing as their told-and a more rational take.

The cheeky buzzard even has the nerve to say;

It is evident that the bias, shame, blame, and discrimination that surrounds obesity is so pervasive that very few people living with this disease apparently have the courage to stand up and publicly share their stories and “demand” help and support for dealing with this condition. 

There you go. Fat people have no courage. We are so weak, we can't even stand and pretend to assert the undermined connection with our intrinsic humanness.

Oh rilly? How did that happen pray tell? Following the advice of 'science' that's how. Never being able to accept true outcomes, that's how. The disease-mongering lying that's the 'obesity' cult is how.

'Obesity' has laid waste to even the most no-nonsense large and in charge fatty's self conceptualization, to some degree or another. Does anyone really think people can endure an enforced state of body dysmorphia, panic syndrome induced by insisting we permanently catastrophize to "motivate" ourselves, whilst existing in an often permanently excruciating state of discomfort and shrug it off?

I'd love to see Sharma try that. Actually, no I wouldn't, because I wouldn't wish it on anyone but the truly wicked and I mean that. 

I'll let him into a secret, he couldn't have come out of this any better than us, don't doubt it. He hasn't a clue, because like a lot of his cronies, he's out of touch with fat people's deepest thoughts and feelings.

As much because fat people are too-when it comes to the experience of being fat, as the on-going lack of objective observation.

The only reason for such absurd expectation is fat people's incredible grace. I've said it before, fat people should be studied for the amazing extent to which we have withstood such relentless and ruthless assaults on our character and person, over such a sustained period. Sometimes from a very young age.

Living the 'obese' persona turned me into someone I despised more than the most wicked people who've ever lived-for long stretches. This damaged me, and yet, somehow......resilience. The psychopathologies-cognitive distortions etc., caused by playing 'obese' are sometimes quite noticeable. Some are easily as bad as what is diagnosed as separate neuroses in those who aren't fat.

On some level I almost guffaw at this. We are walking around in plain sight with these, yet many aren't downed by them. And don't expect the 'obesity' crew to know anything. They've so pathologized people-including their odious pity-they can barely tell.

Honestly, they're like a monkey on your back.

Intriguingly, this suggests not that its better not to know [you have a neurosis], but that the burden imposed by portentously focusing on neuroses, can be the last straw for your mind. Rather like playing 'obese' disrupts metabolic function often in the ways fat people are caricatured.

'Obesity' in modern times, though perhaps not always, has got to be one of the most useless that ever passed for what? Scholarship (?) [Oh please, I'm on the floor]. It's supposed to exist to serve fat people. How odd a notion is that?

It's supposed to be driven, unbidden, to acquire knowledge of metabolic anatomy, function in order to uncover new pathways to improve health and well being of those who need it most. It's supposed to be fully engaged with fat people's bodies, how/if they function differently and how to make the most of that.

They'd engage with fat people too, get to know them. You get to know people best by looking after their needs.

Instead, this discipline [snigger] is filled with food fixated zealots, putative social engineers and those who wish to advance the interference of the medical profession in areas many do not want them to be in.

No other has ever trashed its own supposed vehicle for study.  Not people engaged in studying paedophiles, psychopaths, violent criminals. NONE.

Every single one of those fields have humanized their subjects by default due in some part to the outcome of academic rigour. If not some fellow feeling for, or some desire to do some good. Not 'obesity.' Remarkably its recent outpourings have managed to introduce a remorseless dehumanization of those it should want to help.

That muppet Yalom  says he finds it easier to connect with those convicted of heinous crimes more than fat people. He said that with more ease than most 'obesity' wallahs could show to fat people, even when they're sweating to pity fat people. Which is not at all apt.

It is truly monstrous to have a field filled with so much hatred for those its supposed to be caring for. I honestly cannot think of any other where so many involved openly want fat people to suffer, or even to die.

I mean we hear about the fattest all the time in the media and television. Where are the Dr Sharma's, the Karen Hitchcock's, the Yoni Fredhoff's to give the benefit of their objective expertise? Name one field where that would not be the case? These might as well be in hiding.

That is why areas of knowledge about health progress. Experts in any other field would lose their shit if any hack misrepresented their area of expertise in the way the media routinely does to fat people. Private words would be had with the programme makers, broadcasters, newspapers etc., and it wouldn't be nice.

So after decades of silencing you and getting others to enforce this. You're expected to emerge pristine and presumably ready to give suitably simplistic sob story of "living with this disease." As usual, it's somehow always down to the fat public to do the professional's jobs for them.

Because suddenly behaving like a true academic discipline is so far out of sight, they can't imagine it. 

They'll have another conference though.....

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.

Is Loneliness a Disease?

An enduring enigma at the heart of the 'obesity' cult, including this notorious brainfart is any assertion that though there's a field supposedly dedicated to the study of it, people must become 'disease' in order to prompt what should be that field's whole reason for existing.

The real issue is simple, there's no sure, direct, predictable, way to halt and/or reverse the process of weight gain. That is all that is needed, that's most of what should have been the central vocation of "obesity science."

It's dodged this forever and it can either see how long it can drag that out, or get the hell on with it. 

This paper looks at loneliness and the potential effects of a mindful approach on what is said to be negative health correlates. It explores mindfulness meditation to see if it can palliate these effects. Wait though.

Has loneliness been declared (a) disease? 

According AMA docs that's the motor of seeking to improve people's health in accessible ways. Not the intentions of those involved in the field, or anything.

It's a small study starting from the basis that loneliness is deemed to provoke potentially serious negative health effects. Focusing on the elderly population who tend to be more vulnerable to social isolation for a variety of factors.

They concluded mindfulness- maintaining focus in your present experience, allowing your thoughts to flow calmly, without becoming emotionally entangled with them-not only reduces the chemical markers associated with the health risks they were interested in.

The signs from the results were that it not only promises to lessen those risk factor markers, it also can reduce people's feelings of isolation.

This raises a question about how we see loneliness. On the one hand we think of it as aloneness-so how could that be lessened from within? Unless that concerned training on how to make friends or something like that.

It brings to mind the old axiom that you can feel lonely in a crowd yet not so on your own. Suggesting more (potential) harm is done, not in being alone so much as the habitual quality of your internal state and your (habitual) reaction to that. Or how you feel on the inside. Being alone, leaves you with that.

This can easily become a continual vicious cycle of negativity can help to wear you(r body) out. I note this so easily because let's face it, that's the 'obesity' strategy. To create a permanent state of negative feeling so acute, that one will do anything to escape those feelings.  The agonies of semi-starvation and overexercising are supposed to seem more tolerable than that.

The process of starting this, gives you permission to stop polluting your mind.

If you're asking, how can you participate in something so seemingly fake? In short, its pretty much boiling frogs. The first (unseen) hook is you accept it is wrong to be fat. Things roll on from there. Ultimately, you feel unethical not to keep participating in this scenario-which is actually very real whilst you are. Trying to stop this is like trying to stop feeling bad about being unfaithful, if that's an absolute no no in your mind. It feels unethical.

Any damage this exhausting cycle inflicts can be put down to 'obesity'. Which is why 'obesity' wallahs hate HAES or anything that remotely reports the reality of the weight/mortality graph.

Mindfulness is in essence, learning about detachment. I'm sure many people done with the cult instinctively start with a form of mindfulness. They learn to try and disengage from the internal cycle of negativity-as well as the external. If they either know or discover to really step off it, that begins to fade and they'll realize underneath this is-"self love."

If it is deemed;

People suffering from chronic inflammatory conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and asthma - in which psychological stress plays a major role - may benefit from mindfulness meditation techniques,

Then why wouldn't the field and its touting of "minor inflammation" be falling over itself to see the effects of something that can potentially lessen that level of said inflammation/response? Where are the numerous studies devoted to seeing if freeing people from the debilitating 'obese' mindset cultivated over such a long time improves health?

Oh, have I just answered the question?!

Follow up studies are needed. This is sort of like a guide for directing more a more fundamental search for underlying pathways of reversing inflammation and inflammatory response. It would be fascinating to see if this effect could be zoomed in on, intensified, made more direct, predictable and controllable. Perhaps with specific techniques, who knows?

It's the kind of approach that puts people in the driving seat helping us bypass the very professionals, some of whom affect disdain for certain bodies, oh boo hoo. And plus, no wretched nagging about what you eat.

This is my idea of "increased access" people doing stuff we can for ourselves, leaving the rest to the professionals. Rather than always being centered on dragging people into a healthcare system that isn't able or doesn't necessarily want to accommodate them.

Because someone gives a damn about the suffering of others, we can all potentially benefit. All who are lonely/isolated could benefit from this approach, let alone those with inflammatory conditions of all kinds, including of course mental health problems. Yes, inflammation's a bit of a buzz term right now, but I do think there's something in this.

Over time, practise of mindfulness can lead to a different consciousness which can lead to a kind of partnership between professionals and lay, where the latter get to use the deep desire to "take responsibility" denied by a pill for every ill.  Which of course could have started with fat people and our unusually high level of commitment to such cost for such minimal returns. But whatever. 

This is what I mean by "obesity"quackery has cost us all opportunities to learn more and do more about ourselves. 

Toytown Eugenicists

There's a certain odd kind of privilege-I mean the general not the political kind- to this 'obesity' crusade. To see the thoughts people normally keep in check dribbling out like a previously repressed oil slick. Few rules, few courtesies ensure 'obesity' is the point where that pressure lessens so much that what tends to be unspoken elsewhere bursts forth.

 Sadly all this "free speech" isn't leading to the intellectual advance we're usually promised. .

In this case, it hasn't become stimulating. It hasn't stirred everyone up out of their entrenched complacency -its all just dumped on fat people, like so much garbage. Instead of the unmentionable coming to the fore to be aired, discussed and perhaps some useful resolution emerging. It lands in the usual fat phobic cul-de-sac to fester and produce mal-air.

You've probably twigged that one of the central triumphs of western medicine is that it stops "natural selection"-which isn't quite a simple as is conveyed- from having quite such a clear run. At the same time natural selection doesn't simply or only kill off what's deemed unhealth/ imperfection, as much because that's often the other side of what's deemed perfection/healthy.

The extent that it does fly in the face of NS was supposed to be an admirable aspect of its civility and progressiveness- some think we've maxed out that courtesy.

Dr. David Archer an academic exclaims;

When a mother is inactive and obese, their baby grows massive. The baby can’t get through the birth canal, and the doctor has to perform a C-section. ‘That allows both the mother and foetus to survive, when previously they would have died.’

I'll bet he teaches a class and a half. Prematurity is more likely in lower weight women and in the now recommended low weight gain. Plus premature/low weight babies are said to be more likely to become 'obese' in adulthood.

Archer expands [geddit?]

‘The evolutionary consequence is we are getting much bigger children than ever in the history of mankind.’

I'm not an expert on evolution, but I thought it was supposed to happen over millions of years;

Professor David Haslam, a former GP specialising in obesity, said: “We have an epidemic now where we have mums who are fat having fat babies. In this way we are devolving as a population instead of evolving and that’s very dangerous.”

Fat women are devolving man actually woman kind? Wait till the 'pro-lifers' and the mra's get a hold of that one. It's one thing to hit the sherry, but when the sherry hits you back, cork it. I have this one as my favourite though;

Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, said: “It’s a vicious circle because the fat mother is going to produce a fat child who is going to grow up into a fat adult who is going to produce their own fat child. It just goes round and round and round.”

Zomg, fat, fatty, fatso, fatastical, fatasmogoric, fattality, fattalistical fatness. It's almost as if there's........ some kind of......... connection. A tie between people of the same kin.... It's as if parents are passing something on to their children..... Not genes silly bad habits.

I can laugh at people under the influence as much as the next woman, but when folk start having intellectual breakdowns, busting out the toytown eugenics. Someone needs to stage an intervention-if some of you guys do not get a hold of yourselves-this isn't going to end well.

Time for a history lesson.