Ceasefire On Your Phony War

"Britain is becoming a mascot for diabetes – it’s time to do something drastic about obesity". If Britain is becoming a mascot for stupid self-defeating behaviour-then wondering around all surprised after the fact, like a monkey who's lost its banana.

The war on obesity, which has not yet even been declared, will be won through a series of small victories and guerrilla skirmishes, just as it was against tobacco. 

How impressively butch. All reality will bow before you, no doubt. 

To your typical comparison of tobacco with fatsuity;


Both A and B, both the host and the 'disease' are is BMI 30+. As your hack-soul knows full well, there's no comparison between tobacco and the human body. It's about showing contempt.

Why that particular war metaphor though?

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

A top down abuse of power is now a revolutionary insurgency against the odds?😵

Irregular warfare
...defined in US joint doctrine as “A violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations.

💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

Even if this was the case, who has dictated things as they stand? As you can see in the diagram, your targets do not even appear in the term that you are using to attack them in your phony war! That obviously comes from the notion of a-slim person who has 'extra' that is with 'obesity' and is all about you.

You and your kind are in the driving seat. 

When a subject is not a study of you, negates everything you think, feel. say and do, when it doesn't know let alone respond to your needs, when it blocks even the most minor possibility of arming you with anything that will give you power or autonomy over your own body-It is not about you. It's about those writing the script.

 People like this, write the script, regardless of reality. When it comes to other people, they feel that entitled.

What folk like this want to continue with the current order where every BMI 30+ is a criminal who owes a debt to society that must be paid. That payment is a life sentence of futile diet 'n' exercise, aka starvation and hard labour. We all know, including op-ed, that this has failed, but it doesn't matter, it's about punishment above all else.

They're getting exactly what they want.

This fake war against civilians by the influential from elite classes, has been on for at least 40 years in its most recent incarnation. It never gets beyond inducing weight reduction using calorie restriction is defeated by the body's own self-regulation, because of the monstrous self-indulgence of the script writers. And their rejection of SCIENCE, in favour of turning "health" into a criminal justice model.

This is way worse than any climate change denial. Their failure and lies can be seen at all times. Climate change is not nearly so evident. 

The first line of this pile of tripe is, "You are what you eat, so the saying goes.". I'll see that twaddle and raise them an axiom, if the hypothesis doesn't match reality, change the hypothesis.

Don't change, nay mutilate bodies, change your approach, work with and use the body's own abilities. A proper physiologically honest grasp of how the body regulates itself, and means of resetting how much body mass the body sustains, is required in place of insisting people starve themselves.

How is it possible to hate science this much? Even right-wing christian conservatives don't feel this aversion. On the contrary, they've shown real respect for science in their some of their misguided attempts to reframe their holy books as filled with science. 

It's people like this who are truly anti-science. Anti-vaxxers aren't even on the same page of mess as them.

I'll put it to them in simple terms.

Either continue to do your punishment, or allow the science to be done-stop blocking it.

But you cannot turn your punishment into efficacy, no matter how much you mutilate and poison organs. And your increasingly deranged efforts to have your cake and eat it too will just cause massive penalties to be paid, and not by you, as usual.

Absolute Neurosis

"A lesson from the biggest losers: Exercise keeps the weight off" refers to that study of former biggest loser contestants.

It claims the key to staving off the rebound part of any calorie restriction induced weight loss cycle [the calorie-weight deficit/restoration of calorie-weight deficit is all ONE cycle] is exercise.

"Hope"

I wish the NYTimes would make room for other types of articles on health, providing us with indepth insight into various genetic illnesses, diseases, and other conditions. These constant articles about studies of how to lose weight and keep it off are tiresome. Diet and exercise works, don't we know that by now? Let's move on.

Hope and I do not agree on the viability of cal res, but we both agree it's time to move on with endless portentous repetition of nothing. It's the professionals who don't want to. They are the ones wanting to keep going round and round in their circles as long as they can, postponing that inevitable moment when science must stop being pseud.

On average, those who managed to maintain a significant weight loss had 80 minutes a day of moderate activity, like walking, or 35 minutes a day of vigorous exercise, like running.

Compare this with stopping smoking. This is of course, after spending the weight. This is a life sentence of the wrong means to achieve ends.

On average is not for everybody though,

For the four years after the show, he exercised more than two and a half hours a day and gained back just 40 pounds.Then the injuries began, forcing him to cut back his workouts to one and a half hours a day. His weight crept up to 235 pounds.

The next year, “my body just started breaking down,” he said. “I had a foot injury, a wrist injury. I couldn’t keep it up.” And he was exhausted.

More than two [one!] and a half hours a day to gain "only" 40 lbs, not to be slim let alone thin.

Physically breaking down under the strain of exercise purging, with injury piling upon injury to the point where you have to stop - usually comes towards the hospitalisation end of a thin/slim person's anorexia nightmare.

It's also calls to mind neurological weight loss diet burnout, where your nervous system is unable to tolerate the provocation of restriction and you just can't.  I say that not to be fancy, but because you want to keep dieting, but something has changed, your body blocks you, it's a rather eerie discovery.

Yet this too is perceived as failure of the person, not the method,

It’s a difficult task for virtually anyone, Dr. Kerns said: “The amount of time and dedication it takes to manage one’s food intake and prioritize exercise every day can be an untenable burden for many people.” “It’s totally unfair to judge those who can’t do it,” she added.

Doesn't multiple injuries or nervous system exhaustion with fighting off restriction show dedication? How can you get any more dedicated that actually exhausting your body's ability to continue with what you are doing?

Cahill could do it. He wasn't a can't do it! At the very least should be where even the most raving calorie restrictionists draw the line. It should be "Okay, you all have to train like athletes and starve like anorexics, until your body breaks down, then you must stop."

But no, apparently, you still haven't done anything. It is an extreme version of how the ideology in people's minds erases recognise fat people's efforts.

As has been pointed out, these "biggest losers" are the success stories. They are outliers in success. Biggest loser type dieters are like anorexics without the madness, their behaviour, not anorexics, is driven by pure will.

Neither are in control.

Nor is dieting hard its easy, it's the body blocking its action that gives it rigour, but that wasn't in the calculation. Ci/co cannot adjust to this.

What happened to Danny Cahill is what your defences are blocking, potential damage and injury. This erasure of fat people's efforts is a sign of deep neurosis. These people are hallucinating an absence, whilst looking directly at what is present.

I'll re-emphasise, it is normal for most of us to display signs that could be seen as or actually form part of a psychiatric diagnosis. Unless that's so pronounced as to pull other things out of alignment [or the reverse], the overall pattern is what makes up genuine diagnosis.

This should be enough of a warning sign though, even addicts going into rehab and coming out addicts will not be told-you didn't go there. Whether the failure is seen as one of those things or something the person did wrong, their presence is recognised.

Here's is a mindset which perceives doing purely on outcome. Do nothing + the desired outcome = activity, success. Do everything + undesired outcome = inaction, failure.

Calorie restriction has always been unlimited in this way, sure evidence of its inherent quackery. Every function has limits. Only in fiction are there no limits. In reality, not recognising any limits just puts pressure on your mind to erase the limits that will naturally manifest.

Dieting and exercise feel bad not because they are hard-they aren't-it's because they are bad. 

All this is also evidence of a profound failure of us fat people. Our refusal to set limits ourselves, on what we should expect to do is perhaps most shocking of all. What exactly is motivating us to allow such liberties to be taken with us? Why do we allow people to impose unending, unendurable labour?

Slim people, fat phobes maybe sinking under the weight [yes] of their own neuroses, but it is we that seem entranced by this. It is we that appear to be willingly sleepwalking to our own destruction.

Dieting Has Proven You Can't Learn Anorexia Nervosa

"Long-term weight loss maintenance in obesity: Possible insights from anorexia nervosa?" was written by a group of "eating disorder researchers" led by Loren Gianini. It caused a kerfuffle some weeks ago. I've not had the privilege of reading it, they're shy. I'm going with the seemingly self explanatory title.

Its assertion, phrased as a 'question', rests on the ever present notion that anorexia nervosa is an acquired skillset which can be learnt. Weight loss dieting rests on that basis also, making it easy to cast the failure of weight loss dieting as a failing of the person.

This is also the logic of "pro-ana"-the desire to pursue anorexia nervosa as an acceptable lifestyle. The idea was always of a pathology to counter a pretend pathology [body mass].

Weight loss dieting is and has always been proto- or early stage anorexia.

It's well known. When so much as a squeak of concern is expressed about anorexia, the swift response is often, "We have an obesity crisis!!" In other words, anorexia is allowed as "treatment" for 'obesity', those (slim/thin people) succumbing to anorexia and wasted by AN are deemed "collateral damage".

It's tea and sympathy for them and likely a big bit of cake-to build their weight back up-plus some family or other counselling.

Apart from the illusory divide, the central offence of these researchers is the feigned innocence-presenting an inherent part of the 'obesity' playbook as a new possibility. This is typical of anything within touching distance of 'obesity' right now, things that have been around for ages are dubbed new developments just discovered by research, to save face.

You could be amused at this from those getting off on lecturing others on the value and necessity of facing uncomfortable reality head-on. It's positively monstrous of them to deny themselves the privilege.

Why oh they punish themselves?

Anyhoo, the connection between proto-anorexia as; prevention, treatment, cure of 'obesity' plus "maintenance" of nobesity and anorexia nervosa is where this begins to get [slightly] interesting, throwing up the so often self-defeating nature of "noble lying".

Anorexia nervosa [AN] is not a skillset. This is something we all nominally agree on, but we actually do not. Insiders bray, anorexia is not a choice. At the same time, they and their supporters think it is. 

Let’s spend taxpayer money to help fat people learn the magic sauce that people with anorexia have mastered.

Anorexics have not mastered anything, [perhaps you could say their body has]. AN is a susceptibility or tendency if you prefer, meeting the trigger of early stage anorexia. People don't practise and become perfect, something in the has to succumb to this pressure.

Something controlling/affecting hunger and eating's neural pathways implodes or fails.

You can be a lazy bum if you are susceptible enough. The ability to start and stay on the proto-anorexic/anorexic route is likely to be part of that tendency.

This postulate is fundamentally erroneous. It misjudges what's happening with anorexics, assuming fat people need to copy them better, when the whole of dieting 'n' exercise already tries to do that. It cannot create a tendency toward anorexia. We can't copy succumbing to anorexic stimulus. 

...further research be conducted to inform interventions to facilitate these behaviors in the higher weight group and interrupt the behaviors in the lower weight group.

You can do all the behavioural research you like-I actually assumed at first that they were doing biochemical research and were seeking to chemically trigger anorexia in some aspect.

This experiment has already been done and dusted, the urge to keep repeating it unceasingly is neurosis that should be dealt with the same as any other.'Obesity' promoters like to behave as if the past hasn't happened. Using our bodies in the way they are designed is the right way to achieve whatever metabolic outcomes are required.

As for the fat phobia of 'eating disorders', that's a no-brainer, they've always been that way, even the term "eating disorders" is a product of calories in/out modality and experience. If you are going to fit your experience into their notions you've already accepted that basis.

False disconnection of proto-anorexia or dieting from anorexia nervosa causes unnecessary confusion and suffering, making it harder to understand what AN is. Saying that anorexia nervosa is the exposure of an innate tendency shouldn't affect funding. People can't help being anorexic, but they can help dieting in the main.

This divide is the voice of people under the influence of anorexia nervosa.

Dead Dogma?

Well, well, well. Could we be witnessing the spread of terminal boredom with the useless, deranged and costly 'obesity' cult? Its stupidity, its sinister, psychopathic nature, dehumanises and objectifies. It has degraded us all in some way or other. 

And the interminable nonversations about food. How many times, the person who's lost 5 stone 'cos they've gone on a diet/changed their so called lifestyle, clouds in the heavens, WTHGAD? Or is it just part of the 'obesity' industry's attempt to transfer healthcare funds to its own accounts, blocked its own rank hate campaign?

[I always wondered how they'd get around that].

Matt Ridley who describes himself as; "Author, rational optimist, Times columnist, Wall Street Journal contributor, Tory peer, Northumbrian. Keen on science, scepticism, genes, ideas having sex."

M'kay;

"Obesity dogma has done us a fat lot of good"

Some put on weight more easily than others and there is no point in being proscriptive until scientists are certain why

That last bit nearly sums things up. Scientists need to find out how to use the anatomy that's already regulating the body's cells and learn how to alter that slightly in the main. We are not talking about disease or pathology, we are talking about reinforcement of regulation.

We've been here many times before and Ridley has noticed the 'obesity' consistently fails on its own terms-blaming it on its quarry, so that it can keep failing and blaming it on its quarry.....

You'd think that would have been super obvious. But when we expect to produce truth-they volunteer- producing distortions and blatant fibs, with the collusion of willing pitchforking weight vigilantes, it's surprising what liberties can be taken.

At the weekend Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum claimed implausibly that obesity now costs the state £24 billion a year. The Institute of Economic Affairs puts the cost at less than £2.5 billion, and argues that “while claims of a crippling cost are a good way to get media attention . . . they irresponsibly incite resentment of a vulnerable group”.

"Implausibly" understatement of the year.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a free market think tank.  Even the political corner that generated established and promoted a lot of this rubbish is offering sceptical analysis off it and using language like "vulnerable group". 

How long will people tolerate these pompous bores and their joy stealing, freedom negating activities.

And note how they know full well that it is the 'obesity' industry generating this ugliness, aiming it directly the type of people who post violent pornographic images of women being tortured, in order to try and drive women off social media. 

But some fat activists are still tippy-toeing around this, parroting nonsense about how "obesity is complex", [unless complex now means a stupid time sucking waste] aping 'obesity' wranglers divide and conquer blaming of the [slim] public. Like they whispered in their ear and told them we the [fat] public are to blame.

I detest people who parrot ob trope, tripe, however, there's no question that they get permission, encouragement and support in the form of such as the so called study of no such thing as people who actually exist of last week. Followed by the offer of some more crazy shit they can stick into you.

This stuff is created for everybody, but especially trolls, haters and bitter psychologically damaged whack jobs prepared to do their dirty work of bullying people into feeling as bad as possible. And they duly oblige, behaving as if they've had a work promotion.

I remember years ago suggesting all the ugliness posted on spaces occupied by fat people on social media should be directly e-mailed to "obesity researchers" producing this ugly hateful crap, just to give them some accountability for their actions. 

I've never sent a death threat to anyone in my life but I'd be happy to send them the death threats fat people on-line get from these cretins, preferably linking to the trash references scattered amid their poisoned outpourings. Asking stuff like; "Is this incentivising enough do you think?"

Advising, hectoring and bribing people to eat less and exercise more appears to be ineffective. We have just about tested that idea to destruction. It isn’t working, and it probably will only work if it becomes fully totalitarian, with police raids on home kitchens to seek out and destroy secret stashes of biscuits.

And this might be a problem for 'obesity' wallahs, they effectively require the pursuit of inefficient calorie intake and upping energy expenditure to become the defining principle of society as well as fat people's lives. Without bothering with any open discussion of whether that should be a thing. So do they take for granted the sport of loathing fatz is an inexhaustible well.

Perhaps not?!

The other day, I saw an article on pregnancy, it totally grasped how so called advice has become a tightening noose around pregnant women's necks. With 'obesity' it has gone far further consent is not a thing. We are not expected to have any opinions feelings or views other than what we are told to by ignorant idiots who-to add insult to injury-have little imagination.

What should a government do when there’s great uncertainty about both causes and the right course of action? Experiment, of course. 

If he stopped there, he'd be bang on so I did that for him. A proper sustained science of metabolic function, concentrating on the anatomy concerned is what's missing from the picture. The 'obesity' construct needs to enter  the dustbin of history- NOW.

Government should gather together a specialist team contain only those that can think well and have zero committment to shoring up 'obesity' and its cult.  Give them a year or two to find out how metabolic function works.

I'm sure knowledge of that would "motivate" those straining every pore  to avoid finding out anything useful.

No More NHS Donations to the Slimming Industry

Following on from a post the other day, "News Just In: Diet's Don't Work, Again", we have, a "study" funded by WW. Rest assured they did not interfere, it's pure coincidence that this 'study' concluded we must increase the transfer of NHS funds to them.

How so?

...the move could prevent tens of thousands of cases of obesity-related diseases over the next 25 years.

So that's "obesity-related" a bullshit obfuscation and 25 yrs, m'kay.

The study found that those given a year-long pass to weight-loss classes lost more weight and were better able to keep it off than those on three-month programmes or those going it alone with self-help guides. 

Ummm, an *eyeroll* statement if ever there was one. The next thing is to examine the brazenness of this fronting, for comparison with prior outstanding achievements in that area.

Number one cute move [they think] dieting clubs are called "weight loss classes" btchplz. Typical over the last 4 decades of failure is slimz undying assumption that they know how to school us in what is mainly involuntary regulation.

1,267 people were split into three groups-one group was given a self help guide. Notice all fat people have ever wanted, to do it ourselves, is increasingly discouraged due to the previous presumption. They can do it to us better than we can do it to ourselves.

The other two groups were split between those who had instruction in the rocket science of eating less and doing more for 3 months and 12 months respectively. The latter won the war on fat.

The results show that, on average, those offered self-help guides lost 3.26kg after a year, while those offered weight loss classes for three months or 12 months lost 4.75kg and 6.76kg respectively. 

That's self-help=7lbs 2oz, 3mths=10 lbs 7oz and 12 mths= 14lbs 14 oz.

All regained at the two year point but the 12 month group won by being 4.29kgs/9lbs 7oz less than their starting weight. You do the numbers. It shouldn't need to be said this is clearly not the right way to reverse weight.

Slim people have no idea what they're doing. They can't even do what would come before this to help their poor selves. They are just performing their delusion with us aiding and abetting as if they are so mentally damaged that we cannot possibly shatter their delusions.

This sort of nonsense 'research' is the kind of toilet paper science (barely fit to wipe ya arse with) that's produced purportedly to show the effectiveness of what is mainly quack ridden areas like mood difficulties and other neuroses. Things that shhh, *whisper it* you can directly access/ alter with your own mind.

It isn't easy, sometimes it is or feels impossible, but that is why a lot of flummery can be made to look like it has reliably tangible effects i.e. refeeding, talking therapies, substance rehab and such.

Researchers, medics et al insist this is an apt model for manipulating metabolic function. You can grasp the central problem MASS and what produces it is real. It isn't thoughts, moods, habits or the product of certain experience.

You cannot tell slim people this, and sadly, fat people are still too utterly mired in supine conditioning to unholy deference to medics and health professionals especially, to get out from under supporting their vainglorious delusions. 

So in short no, do not donate any more healthcare resources to slimming club quackery, it's needed for stuff that actually does work.

Evil Under the Sun

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

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

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

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

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

It is wholly unecessary. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Attack

I see from Ragen that Bob Harper has had a heart attack *pause*. That's right, the main trainer on the Biggest Loser (US) has succumbed to heart trouble.

After spending years barking at fat people like a rabid dog, ordering them to starve and torture themselves with exercising till they/cry/ vomit/breakdown emotionally has up and fallen down into a dead faint needing medical intervention to save his life.

No motivation-inspiration for him, proper techniques based on biological reality that actually do what they are supposed to do. Imagine that. 

 Bob Trying to give some victims an "obesity-related" Bob Attack

Bob's situation also reinforces my oft made point that TBL shows just how healthy, healthy people are [regardless of their size]. That shitshow has never managed to give any of them a Bob Attack despite obviously trying. Summing up the extent of fakery involved in a crusade desperate for people to be unhealthy whether they are or not. Hereby being the first crusade to mandate psychosomatic illness in modern times, perhaps ever. 

Consider, how much of any of his 'work-outs' could Bob do right now? *Shudder* it beggars thought. And that my friends is what MORBIDITY actually is. Not a way to repurpose a personal yuck factor, an insult or an emotional terror tactic.

Bob representing typical fitness industry ignorance

No wonder he was driven to do so much keep fit! The poor sucker was trying to outrun his fate. Something he has in common with his victims who seek to outrun their assigned fate, it rarely works for either.

Perhaps that's why so many of these fitness types can summon up so much inexplicable "anger". It's their FEAR screaming. 

There's also displacement. Using fat people as vehicles for diet and exercise tropes doubles up as an exhortation of self-to keep going with your 'fitness' and keep these feelings at bay/keep hold of your life.

Kind of like the slimming business, where people go to keep up the restriction their bodies have succumbed to, seeking prolongation of the effect through making careers as nutritionists, personal trainers and the like.

How sneakily our inner needs manifest themselves!

I can't say if its statistically significant, but it does seem that if you throw a population at diet and exercise that an uncanny amount who are able to stick with it do seem to need some means of seeing off their fate.

It begs the question of just how much the body knows what is in store. Whether there was some 'injury' or malfunction all along waiting to implode.This is then read through the conscious insistence that all metabolic alteration must take the restriction exercise course.

If there was proper means of making adjustment, that worked with rather than against the body, that could have spared poor Bob. 

People like this would probably be better off with a more gentle way of handling their inheritance, keeping their body relaxed and their mind calm.

This is of course why so many people cannot sustain these quack fitness regimes [with the emphasis on regime]. Their bodies know what their more pliant (conscious) minds do not, that this sort of self-abuse could bring matters to a conclusion before they would like. 

According to reports, Bob did not bob, he dropped like a stone and had to be virtually snatched from the coffin by a friendly paramedic. He is at 51, literally, a coffin-dodger.

He like fat children and adults, has had the rug well and truly pulled from under him. His confidence is shaken and he'll feel vulnerable and scared. Every twinge will now bring doubt, is this the end? Welcome to our world Bob. To what it feels like to be terrorised by health.

My advice? Get over that. Overlook it and focus on the positive, take care of yourself, forgive your poor body which can only do its best.  Appreciate it and be kind to it and yourself as a person. That's what we're trying to do and what everyone like yourself is trying to put us off doing.

Imagine that.

On the road to recovery. Required to wear these monitors for a while. Thank you all for your kindness. You have no idea how much it helps. ❤ pic.twitter.com/elK68VbhC5

— Bob Harper (@MyTrainerBob) 28 February 2017

Oh we have every idea. It'll be interesting to see whether and to what extent he shows any contrition for his past actions. However that pans out, I'll be expecting a work-out and special diet for invalids, special work-outs for recovering from actual rather than pretend illness and so forth.

Or perhaps he'll go away and hide like "obesity shut-ins" have to do due to the triumphant reign of the ideology he represents/ represented, I kind of doubt that, don't you?

Other lessons are available of course; the difference between health and fitness, Bob was fit, not necessarily healthy (not right now any how). Only slim people are allowed to acknowledge the possibility of genetic inheritance, that when health becomes 'behavioural' everybody has to explain themselves.

There are millions of Bobs and Robertas, heart attacks affect as many who have none of the personal markers associated with them as do, and so on and on....

Trying to tell anyone into fitness this sort of thing though is like trying to tell a romantic that there won't necessarily be a fair maiden/man riding to their rescue. Well remember next time they're hating on you, that they could well be fighting for their own life.

Dog eat dog.

Idle 'Science'

I happened to be reading "Why stress can make you overweight" because I'm a glutton for punish... oh look, I've finally faced the truth, now I can take action against the terrible addiction to what humans cannot live without...

The article is about stress triggering release of a hormone called Adamts1, I don't know why that sounds cute to me. Apparently, this chemical is contained within fatty tissue sites and has the power to influence stem cells contained within- to become* new fat cells.

Now you may have noticed certain researchers are going around telling everyone within earshot that they now know fat cells aren't just handbags to keep your spare junk in, oh no, they're cells that interact with the brain, nervous system and metabolic function,

It was once believed that fat cells were just passive bags of calories, but recent research shows they send and receive important hormonal signals.

Note the phrasing "It was once believed..." More like assumed. It was once assumed, by scientists and researchers [they're the "it" bit], that fat cells were greedy and lazy, did nothing, because they were fat cells. I was even told this myself by a certain person on this site,

A lot of FA people seem to express they believe their fat is just there, a blob sitting on their body without consequence. This couldn't be further from the truth. Fat is metabolically active. It alters hormone levels, releases inflammatory cytokines, disrupts leptin signalling. The more fat you have, the more hormonal imbalance and inflammation, and the more likely to have diabetes, insulin resistance, and heart disease (from inflammation). 

I parked my suspicions there, though the scent of bull was on this. Fat people having embraced the notion that our bodies are whole not slim + and act in concert were ahead of a lot of these researchers. When this happens and your tormentors straw version of you allows no honour, they just lecture you with their new found sense of reality, as if you were insisting on the fibs they strenously advocate.

Any fat person who believed/s in the handbag cell would have got it from 'obesity' constructivism, same as the assumption that weight loss and CRIWL are one and the same. Anyway, I assumed the attempt expressed here to represent the fat cell as if it was some kind of rogue cell had enabled 'obesity' wallahs to finally let go of their silly emotional dependence on adipose handbags. Subsequently, it is clear that they haven't managed this at all, still, because of this Adamts1, I thought this might have been a new dawn for at least the duration of this article,

So when I read this, I was genuinely taken aback,

On anti-obesity treatment options, Dr Feldman said: 'That won't be a simple answer.

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

Back to fat handbags again!!!!

That's not the half of what makes this shocking. Not only is has the research concerned already suggested you can block the formation of the fat cell by being less stressed. Formation of the fat cell has already been blocked and is out there.

* Correction: according to NHS Choices, "they had already started to become fat cells and the hormone [Adamts1] finished the maturation process."

Locus of Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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?

Bulimia is Weight Management

As I like to asy, fat people breaking furniture is the least of the things we're breaking. Attempts to manage us-post FA-are becoming increasingly fevered. To help illustrate, did you know bulimia is a way of cheating the consequences of gluttony? That it's a "quick fix" substitute for a healthy lifestyle? That it's the easy way out? Irresponsible? That bulimics require a firm "deterrent" to prevent their reckless indulgence?

No you wouldn't. Bulimia is seen as something affecting slim people.

No any more! Thanks to the medical doctors who created the bulimia facilitator-Aspire Assist the usual requisite "sympathy" demanded is refreshingly, no more. This let's us see bulimia sans the halo of slim.

Whilst that barrier's been crashed ask yourself, is bulimia really sympathy invoking? Basically, its just people eating and purging food through various orifices, in this case through a tube passing through open wounds in the midriff and stomach, to engender weight loss or at least stability.

I wouldn't say it should invoke hate, but its hardly leaving you teary eyed is it? If it is, you're probably unable to exclude slim people from the picture. If you can, you're left with weight management ["increase calories out"] in action.

I've tried to make this point before but it gets tangled in the halo effect. There is little if any "sympathy" for bulimia, its for the person-it's ad hominem. What appears to be sympatico is merely the airing of what FA's call thin privilege. Without the poignancy of slim pain, you too can feel my usual sense of distance.

Predictably, some jokers have tried to deny this is an aide-bulimia. Just as they deny calorie restriction dieting is proto-anorexia. Resist their flummery, they know the score. This raggedy looking contraption, it looks like a really shit prototype, has been licensed by the FDA. A maximum limit of 30% of stomach contents has been declared. Its medic inventors know bulimia is triggered when purging leads to starvation or the threat of in those susceptible to it.

Generally speaking, there is bulimia-the use of purging to decrease the body's available energy and there's bulimia nervosa-when the practise becomes a compulsive, irresistible cycle. 

There is nothing wrong with calling bulimia, bulimia. Exercise bulimia is an example of why attempts to obscure what this is are thoroughly cynical.

The activities of ED activists with their continual spiel about how ED's are "complex" bio/socio/environmento/economico "illnesses" of the highest magnitude have made people unsure of saying what is. "You don't understand," they cry, "You couldn't possibly grasp the profound complexities of agony..." et al. You're just being handled.

Traditional bulimics do not wish to have this sort of 'enlightment' jeopardised by being associated with fat people thanks very much. That is the reason there's some throwing down of an increasingly tatty smoke and mirrors act.

No bother. Fat people have FA's to shrug that off and consider their interests right? It's in fat people's interests to know this though approved by medics, it is as unhinged as it is pathologically disordered.

Most real disease is spread by a combination of factors. Parliamentary acts to clean up the UK's water system helped wipe out epidemics of cholera-and other infectious disease. Environmental, political, social, psychological, economic etc., It should also give pause that being fat is creepingly described in similar weaselly cliche as ED's.

The mystique of slimz-not to be questioned only obeyed- means even those who grasp exactly what bulima is;

This is forced purging calories after eating, is it not? 

Stumble over the 'obesity' ideology lodged in their brain fugging up the lens of reality;

When many obese patients have received gastric bypass surgery, they have experienced bulimic effects due to the continuation of the same binge-eating compulsions; due to the fact that the stomach now lacks capacity to hold the same large quantity of food in so short a span of time, they find themselves involuntarily regurgitating the food. This happened so often, that the vomiting became habitual and a part of the process, thus the vicious cycle of bulimia is formed by way of medical intervention.

If you remove anyone's stomach, they're likely to vomit when they eat. A few spoonfuls is nowhere near a normal intake. That is one purpose of weight loss gastrectomy, to induce bulimia along with the cutting into anorexia. All this and more is required to make calorie restriction appear to be of any use.

You can plug the holes in a leaky boat-block response to hunger. If you cannot resist hunger, you can try throwing water out of the boat-that's bulimia. Actually, that's Aspire Assist.

It can also be noted that this scrap materials looking effort has provoked this extent of outcry because it spoils the cultivation of the usual bulimia narrative, not because it is an abuse of fat bodies. The petition against Aspire Assist started under the auspices of an eating disorders advocacy group, says with outstanding clarity;

This aspiration device legitimizes purging, encourages binging, undermines bodily autonomy, intuition around eating and fullness, and steps up fatphobia under the falsehood of 'obesity reduction.'

Wow. That is what we are missing from slim people. A small caveat; that's what calorie restriction (induced weight loss) does. It legitimizes eating pathologies, it is starvation and bingeing, it undermines autonomy-because it denies real control.

It is the insistence on that path and that path alone is why this madness of bulimia inspired weight. That path includes this hooey about how fat people need to live an imagined perfect life to achieve slimness as a side effect, that is the same rot. 

Its also clear that this is meant to help, by making vomit-purging more accessible. You don't even need to be bulimic to use bulimia. Do you realise that this is probably the only cal res aid/device/plan that actually says exactly what it does?

Such a lack of shame suggests the docs who came up with it recognize what calorie restriction is. It's inherently pathological and produces pathology. As well as being largely ineffectual. So again, why is everyone, along with fat people, being imprisoned in it? Why do slim people so desperately want us to be put through this mill, what is driving this messed up urge in them?

The most amusing reaction in some ways was our old chum Dr. Yoni Freedhoff. He actually spotted that a more natural reaction to bulimia; disgust, aversion, shock is an anomaly. Calling it "weight bias." Like those who bang senselessly on about "PC", he sees 'weight bias' in that light as a way to silence legitimate comment. So he's using it to try and shut down perfectly rational reactions to this outrage. Bias only in the sense that you cannot have thin privilege if you aren't thin/slim.

What a cheeky little scamp he is.

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.

Society's A Gastric Band

Susan Jebb's recently said weight is genetically inspired and worked on by the (food) environment. It's another incarnation of the 'obesogenic' notion.

“You need in some cases a superhuman effort to reduce your food intake. Is that their fault? I don’t think it is.”

What demands superhuman effort is that our bodies are designed to fight this withdrawal of nourishment. The effort is required to defeat your body's organization. Like a football team trying to win by aiming only to score own goals, you are working hard merely to play against yourself.

Better still, it would require little to no effort if a person's hunger was reduced first. That would then led to the person eating less without any need for inefficient "willpower". Whether this would make a person slim or not, is another story but it must again be noted that Jebb doesn't mention this. 'Obesity' wallahs rarely do.

They continue with the wrong way to implement their own demands, so desparate are they to head off the end of civilization as we know it. The idea of the environment acting on a person's weight differs little from- public opprobrium (supposedly) acts to repress a person's weight.

Note the constant of the general contains the individual. This denies said individual any real control over their own body, such as altering hunger, use of energy and so on. This weird, locus of control as outside and wholly inside, keeps your open to interference yet dumps the dysfunction at your door. Jebb hardly departs from this mode. She's just positioned towards the other end.

The outcome of millions of individuals eating as sparsely as would be required, is to turn big food as we know it, into small food. The possibility that this will be replaced with companies that produce acceptable food is undermined by the impossibility of pleasing the food-is-weight regulation crew.

Whether its their phoney tussling is whether sugar or fat is the culprit. Or "plant-based" is everything. [Followed by corrections with titles such as: "This is why you're putting on weight on a plant-based diet.] Who can follow their hypothetical assertions?

To regulate the food of people versus regulate the food business that will be regulated anyway by the regulation of millions of individual people, is the same "side", all inside calories in/out. Not facing up to the implications of mass "lifestyle change" has depended on the untenability of dieting, which is then blamed on individual failure, to keep it going.

Recognizing the extra obstacle of trying to diet individually in the face of an onslaught diametrically opposed to it, was always likely to be the, when slim people felt threatened enough to start behaving like fat people have done for ever. 

The purpose of individualizing dieting and weight, was to try and keep this away from slim people, when they felt dieting had nothing to do with them, not because it was any way to implement mass dietary restriction.

I already made the point that in a society, the thinnest/least weight retentive need to swap roles with the so called 'morbidly obese'. They will have to be the ones scrambling uphill to maintain to their weight up as deathfatz have to run around trying to repress theirs. Calories in/out as the default weight regulation, pits the needs of those least able to gain weight, against those most able.

You can see a bit of this when people complain about food taxes; "Why should I have to pay more for those who can't control themselves?" Clearly they are dunces, but the point is, they voted for it by going along with the insistence on CRIWL. 

Constant warnings about how fat every will be have finally helped to slowly erode slim people's confidence that they just choose slim. This set-up was always waiting for that particular penny to drop and it is. 

The origin of fat people's sense of guilt and protectiveness towards slimmer people is based on feelings of: "We don't want to drag you into this." But that was a conceit. It wasn't up to us.

Those clinging to the status quo pretense of this is an issue of "individual responsibility" simply wish to continue this particular sort of fiction. They're ignoring that this would probably allow the clamour toward dismantling invidual rights to increase, the one that has enabled this taxing of sugar in the first place.

Such is no longer restricted to fat people.

And so it goes. 

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.

NHS Honey-Trap Tax

Honey traps are associated with cold war shenanigans where superpowers used attractive women (and men) to bait big-wigs of enemy countries. These honies then used the seductive arts to liberate important strategic information.

Simon Stevens, head of NHS England intends his honey trap to be a tax set at about 20% on the price of "unhealthy food" sold in NHS hospitals. In other words, part of the UK National Health Service wishes to continue to sell items it defines as UNHEALTHY, in order to make even more money from them than it does now.

A tax imposed on the kind of foods most people like to eat in one form or another, precisely because they're so attractive to the human palate due to their efficient delivery of energy to our bodies. I say this as more of a savoury than a sweet person.

Our bodies need energy to continue to exist, calorie dense foods obviously fulfil this better than calorie poor foods. To the extent that this can make these foods an attractive option at times, even to those not particularly fond of sweetness, so effectively do they fulfil the purpose of food.

They are not faddictive, they're useful.

Certain people simply cannot accept this though.

They want to fight the body by pretending the opposite is true. That calorie poor foods are better and calorie dense worse. This is purely intended to aid weight loss dieting by another name.

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't try living on watery veg, with a smidgen of watery fruit for a treat- if that's what they wish. Each to their own. Just that it would make more sense for them to admit they're fighting their body's underlying organization, and accept that it will protest loudly, rather than framing such resistence as evidence of innate human greed.

You can't fault the usual shamelessness. Whilst positing the motive for this as to improve public health. Instead of no longer selling this evil muck, they wish to continue selling it to make even more money, despite claiming it is draining NHS coffers by causing ill health.

Holy elementary ethics and finance fail.

Some may wonder [no names], why health claims to be flogging unhealth and moaning about the purported costs of said unhealth.  None of this old pony changes the essential design of the body, setting up a fractuous fight with our very direction of biology.

Instead of just recognizing that food or more precisely hunger is not an apt target for managing/altering weight or health (in the main). This ill conceived furrow continues to be ploughed come hell or high water, despite increasing casualities of its own making.

People like Stevens feel they have the right to requisition the free time of NHS employees and/or the public,

....schemes to increase the number of staff walking and cycling to work, and provide more opportunities for other physical activity, including team sports, fitness classes and running clubs. 

Oh really? Who appointed him director of people's free time or how they should get to work? This is undoubtedly part of the attraction of this time wasting failure. It allows "important people" to encroach into areas they have no business being in and would otherwise be shy of.

People's use of their own time is not the call of their employers. It used to be (still is in proper science) a signal of a bad remedy that it takes up too much time, especially in relation to the benefit it is supposed to generate. 

Usually, this extent of time sucking plus heavy (mental) bandwidth draining would be paired with something approaching a deadly chronic condition, when there's no better alternative. Not a hypothetical possibility of elevated risk.

Disorder is the Norm

Susie Orbach's back with a re-print of her tome, "Fat is a Feminist Issue", pause for applause. To be fair, I've never been able to make myself read it. Despite numerous tries my brain refuses to submit.

At times you have to accept limits.

Not that it matters because other people have and they take their cue for much confident psychobabble projections about what being fat is all about,

Being fat was a protection against sexual attention, but also against being marketed to, having one’s body appropriated as a commercial space. Fat was a statement of solidity in the face of motherhood. It was a defence against competition, a way to dance around the painful establishment of hierarchy within your own gender.

Riiight. Can't say I recognize any of that. The only bell is the hierarchy, but that wasn't so much amongst women as other people in general.

And, am I the only one with a big fluffy question mark shaped cloud floating somewhere in my headspace at the ease with which girls/women are said to act out against themselves physically because of men? I feel most of my reactions to such pressures took the form of overcoming through thought, attitude and mindset-whether in mere contemplation or actuality.

Becoming a feminist is surely indicative.

I honestly do not remember a strong desire to undermine or destroy myself to because of men. And I don't think I'm saying that in any spirit of braggadocio. It's a surprisingly popular meme amongst feminists, even now.

I also have to question the routine equivalence drawn between hyperhunger and anorexia/hunger denial. Everyone (hur, hur) recognizes that it usually takes conscious direction to thwart hunger signalling, as you are interrupting physiologically generated sensation. That is why anorexics are thought of and still defined as exhibiting an excess of control.

If you are claiming fatness (obviously conflated with hyperphagia here) is the same, then you are saying hyperphagiacs are also acting under the influence of an excess of self control. Whilst that can definitely create a chain reaction that raises appetite/hunger, it is not direct choice. It would be more in the direction of being overloaded with responsibility or with averse or difficult emotion, for example.

I will say this again, hyperphagia is not a product of conscious direction. If anyone decides to eat without hunger, which I'm not convinced is much if anything of a thing, that isn't hyperphagia, that is their will! Hyper functioning hunger does not require the conscious direction of anorexia/blocking hunger, as it tends to be body led. Like when a person's blood pressure goes up (and stays up). You don't tell it to go up, it goes up (and stays high) in response to something else.

It's when you try to lower an excess of hunger that it can require a heck of a lot of conscious direction both direct and indirect. It usually takes (usually a lot) more to adjust than anorexia- the direction has changed.

Hunger and its response eating are normal, healthy, life-supporting. No conscious effort is required to produce hunger. Any effort of response tends to be rewarding in some way. Sustained ignoring, blocking, suppressing hunger is abnormal, unhealthy and life-averse, you are swimming against the tide of your nature.

When you stop blocking your hunger, the barrier/s to it can reduce. Underlying normalcy has a chance to reassert and restore itself. When you are seeking to turn your hunger down, its much harder because you are going against the run of your survival instinct, albeit performing in a hyper way. The target is also hidden. You just need to go around it and hope that flows onto letting hunger function reduce on its own.

Orbach's current theme is ‘Not all women used to have eating issues. Now everybody does’. Spot on, though she appears not to grasp why. She just mentions this as something "society" has done to people.

Disorder has been normalised by the promotion of weight loss dieting as a means to achieve weight change. It is disordered and capable of provoking hunger/eating disorders.

Through mandating weight must be altered via this route, the 'obesity' crusade has ensured the continued spread of hunger-denying/energy wasting behaviours, attitudes and disorders. This has increased both them and the body's usual counter-reaction raising hunger.

In those with a susceptability, that can lead to hyperphagia-hypersensitized and/or excessive hunger functioning. Disordered, calorie restriction has just about replaced normal eating, as I knew it would have to if the reign of the 'obesity' construct continued.

It is becoming increasingly rare to hear people eating norally, even rarer for that to be matched with normal attitudes to food. People default to healthist eating  rhetoric about eating, weight, health and diet.

We can see this more clearly in the spread of disorder to men. Alcoholism used to be the primary male eating disorder and men felt it many fathoms beneath them to admit to what they saw as "girly" disorders.

Dietary restriction even without energy restriction can be so inherently unbalancing or disordering, that this mindset can easily set off physiological/psychological disorder merely by imposing appetite constraints. Such as high protein, low-fat/low-carb or whatever.

For instance Muscle Dysmorphia otherwise absurdly termed 'bigorexia' (please), is an example. This is when men who wish to directly increase their muscle mass tip into an unbalanced view of their bodies where they become convinced they are lacking, even with a well developed musculature. 

They feel too small, looking at themselves pointing out a litany of non-existent deficiencies and perceived flaws with vicious self disgust. Sound familiar? This is produced when viewing yourself from the outside in becomes overly dominant. Combine that with a disordered view of eating and/or food and you end up pretty much where we are now.

That is what is being exported.

Given my failure to engage with this seminal work, I've always been somewhat ignorant about what its actually getting at and how it arrived there.

Looking at something on the Women's Therapy Centre, I've finally managed to get a clue.

women would attend meetings at the Women’s Therapy Centre saying they felt fat and unhappy, yet not do anything either to lose weight or to change their situation

The answer to that is that dieting is inherently unnatural, running counteri to our instincts. The resistence always deemed non-compliance is physiologically led.

According to this, Orbach felt that because she was seeing this in women, that this was not individual but to do with women's place in family and society.

We weren’t just weak-minded, greedy, ill-disciplined; there were specific realities to the conditions of both fat and thin that we were all chasing or escaping through our eating.

It's also interesting that I've never heard this attain the same traction with anyone as what she hypothesized about fatness,

As did thin, which carried its own freight: that you would be seen as superior and cold; that you would be overcome by your own promiscuity; that you would be perceived as selfish; that there would be no buffer between you and the world.

I find this odd, to say the least.

Orbach reminded me that she identified as being an 'overeater' who was previously fat and lost weight. I have to say I'm no longer convinced that her fatness was not a temporary thing that resolve itself during or before her self analysis epiphany.

It may even be what led her in that direction in the first place.....

Dieting Bug

Confusion about calorie restriction dieting still reigns. Due to "obesity science" and medical professionals,  we're led to believe that there's such a thing as healthy weight loss dieting. Along with the slimming industry which has widely disseminated the falsehood that weight loss is weight loss dieting.

It is not. Dieting is the route by which weight loss is to be pursued, we are given no choice on this. Weight loss is a natural bodily process that's a side effect of the body's use and regulation of its energy.

Another point of confusion is the unthink that if something is "unhealthful" i.e. being fat, that this somehow automatically makes calorie restriction dieting healthy. This appears to parody the cost-benefit ratio. Where something that is unpleasant can become acceptable or even a good thing, due to a comparatively greater risk of what it seeks to alleviate or resolve.

Throwing water over your furniture is something you avoid, unless its on fire. Then, not doing something that would normally ruin it becomes a very good thing in the cause of stopping an inferno. 

Of course a cost-benefit equation does not remove consent, nor pretend that the most toxic and unpleasant route is a must if you can pretend that what it is attacking is the worst most deadly health threat ever i.e. 'obese.'

Dieting is inherently volatile and pathological because it attacks hunger which is there to maintain the body's energy supply. Including to that of your brain. Sufficient energy deficit there would not make for a happy ending.

Hunger is something diet and 'obesity' peddlers like to undermine the existence of, tellingly. That is why we eat, and not hedonism as the current wishful thinking goes.

If it cannot prevent you embarking on this course, it will try to stop any halt any assault you manage to inflict on it. If it cannot manage that, then it will wait until there's any lapse in stentorian resolve i.e. through life happening and shizz. And if you manage to get past that, it will keep trying to reverse your regime of restriction, any chance it gets.

Think of those inbuilt defences as being like the body's immune system (IS)function. Dieting is like an infectious pathogen you're told to infect yourself with to achieve the side effect of weight loss.  That's crazy, but it may not feel like it if those with scientific or medical authority tell you that's a perfectly rational aim.

Now in order to succeed, you need to keep exposing yourself to this pathogen and allow it to develop, your IS keeps fighting it off. In response to this, you are told you need to turn the attempt to infect yourself into a long term infection or "lifestyle"-dieting is a life sentence without any parole for good behaviour.

I'm sure you  realise this means your aim flies in the face of your body's in-built survival instinct. But 'science' and doctors insist-its that way and that way only. Of course it isn't, but they tell you it is.

Your failure to become or remain infected is really the success of your immune system function. Not to mention that this particular bug is unpleasant to be infected by, for a short time, let alone a lifetime. 

That, my friends is a way to grasp the nature of calorie restriction induced weight loss.

Surgery is more effective because it can overcome the body's self preservation instincts which tend to stop you being able to continue self harm if there's the slightest hint of a way out. Surgery cuts that out for you, by cutting out your stomach and rearranging what's left.

I suppose the equivalent to that would be immno-suppresant drugs, say after transplantation, to stop the body rejecting the new organ. In the case of weight loss surgery, it would be to stop your body rejecting the pathology being imposed on it.