The Obesity Paradox

Trigger Warning: For the prospect of sheer unmitigated boredom.

"Obesity almost doubles in 20 years to affect 13 million people". Oh no, way more than 13 million are affected by o-tedium, o-monotony and o-indifference.

Bullet points for a cut out and keep style effect.

Body Mass/Weight/Volume

• Body weight/mass/volume, is body weight/mass/volume, regardless of a person's weight/mass/volume. 

• Our bodies, like the bodies of other animals, regulate their own weight/mass/volume as a function of their inherent biology and physiology. 

• Any desire to alter the aforementioned outcome, in an upward or downward direction demands alteration of the functional settings of said biology/physiology. 

• Scientists can either get on with that, or continue to not get on with that, as is their wont-it's called academic freedom.

How to Adjust Body Mass/Weight/Volume Unsuccessfully 

• Assert that being arbitrarily fatter than slim is really a slim person with "an excess of body-fat mass". 

• Come up with a name for this assertion; "obesity". 

• Make out your 'obesity' is regulated in some way other than the regulation of fat and/or other mass you deem, not excessive. 

• Insist your "excess" must be starved off. 

• When it turns out the body is designed to jettison starvation, act as if this cannot possibly be.

• Continue to cry; "obesity, obesity, obesity" about the land, through your various complaint mouthpieces, as if all the above isn't obvious, if you don't mention it.

• Repeat to absurdity, trying out various poses for effect: rage- anguish-concern-worry-sympathy 😭etc., slyly following through with requests for unlimited power, influence and interference over people's lives, along with pots of cash in general and for the removal of healthy functioning body parts, and other "services".

Let's call this sort of cognitive fallacy, the "obesity paradox"- The more a method fails, the greater the insistence that repetition itself will turn failure into success.

In order to save your embarrassment, we will all pretend we think this is science.

The (never)end.

Vibes Cartel

"Fategories – Understanding “Smallfat Fragility” & the Fat Spectrum"

Over time, as fat activism has become increasingly intersectional and as communities aim to center the most marginalized in their ranks, people have developed labels that describe where they fall on the fat spectrum. 

Crusaders got there first: overweight, obese, morbidly obese, super morbid obese.

“White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.” 

Like;

“I know this is a sensitive topic,” you say to me as I sit on your examination table. Don’t go there, please don’t go there, can we just get through one appointment without this conversation? We had this conversation last time and it was so awful it had me in frustrated tears for hours after my appointment. ...But you go there anyway. “We need to talk about your weight.” 

Despite being able to think about it from a conscious mind, years of experience, knowing this talk is out of the arse, expecting it, preparing for it, rehearsing it, the minimal stress of this idiotic jabber provokes,

This is a topic that can drive me to tears. It’s because I get so angry and frustrated that all I can do is cry. The anger chokes me, burns in my chest, and wells up in my eyes. 

Why still in this same unchanged state? Such invariably low tolerance, such "fragility" as you say? Just because slimz act like its valid, doesn't mean we have to, we choose to, by acting as if we have to. The person dealing this is unmoved, the torn up insides are in the target. How can you still feel this way about something you should recognise as outside yourself, coming from someone else's ignorant take?

Defecting/leaving. This is really common in groups I’m in. When this conversation gets to be too much for the smaller people in the group, they leave… and often form their own group for themselves without realizing how delightful the irony is when they have been complaining about there being too much division in the group based on size and privilege. 

Aware of this or not, they're running from the previous pattern of dealer indifference with torn up target. When someone tries to put you in a framing that threatens your mental and/or physical health you E-X-I-T.

Rather than do this, fat people would rather seek to stay in this same state by seeking to drain anyone they can latch onto, of all available energy, rather than recognise their exhaustion with this shit as reason to walk away.

From an unpublished blog post called [I am] "Not Body Positive";

Body positivity is what newer fat activists threw away fat acceptance for. It had the glamour of slim women. Or should I say the absence of taint of 'fat'? That's more accurate. 

I expected fatz to be ready walk out of slim people's imagination from the beginning. 'Obesity' and compulsory CRIWL was slim people's, we'd submitted totally as it was presented by medics and scientists as "diagnosis", we'd rinsed that out and now we were done and could leave to discover our own consciousness that had been submerged to oblivion, under this rule.

That turned out to be as much of a non-starter as it is today. To do anything but stay living inside slim people's imagination is unthinkable, for the same reasons those subsequent activists wanted to be "body positive" to avoid "fat". Whether people want it by being in proximity or internally via hoping to lose weight, fat people are chasing slim people's vibe.

The bopoistas learnt the logical conclusion of that premise the hard way, as they would not allow us in FA to tell them, beforehand, they didn't care for us at all, then. Later, a couple admitted that they heard about bopo through the media and were moved to get involved in that, not fat acceptance which they couldn't relate to at the time. 

I didn't notice any greater difference between fatter or less fat in this. The default maintained in all fat people, to some degree or other, is humanness resides outside themselves, in the "system", in slims, not in each and every human being regardless of size.

Stepping out of slim people's mindset is seen as somehow stepping out of reality, merely because slim people bother to speak what they feel, even though it is horseshit.

Once slimz are out of the picture, we easily dispense with the burden, distortion, energy-suck of privileging them and just act like human beings, according to our own internal reading. We get it then.

So it is in us to do this, but we consistently refuse, hence I told people to sit with whatever discomfort is preventing them from accessing this necessary breakthrough. This stasis of, ability but refusal to exercise it is what exhausts and drives people numerous good people away. It is an

Knowing fat people have proven time and again that they can act in accord with their own knowledge before, during and after bopo/fat acceptance just beats up anyone who tries to act in solidarity with them, whatever their size. That Jameela Jamil better be as shallow as this, for her own sake. 

Nothing can shake this refusal to drop out of upholding this status quo, whilst greater trivialities are highlighted as substitute activity. "Oppression" is offered as reason. Only when slim people are around though.

Fat people are not "oppressed" we've stayed if not preserved the same sunken state we were in before we realised what was up. 

As for internecine struggles, the difference in reaction to that doctor versus the smug superiority towards other fat people, suggests no comparison. Fat people are the amongst the biggest fat phobes, the only way we truly press each other is subservience to what has brought us to this low point. Even some haters have listened better and even more respectfully, with their fat phobia than many fat activists.

I've even heard fat activists report to me my own insights heard from the mouths of trolls, as having come from trolls.

Now  crawling along this blog like bots, mangling and misusing my work unethically to support positions I do not support, uncredited of course, praising others for lifting my own efforts, usually on the usual basis of a race based sense of entitlement.

Fitting centuries and on-going murder, plunder under the justification/enabler of white supremacy into not fat/slim but fat and fatter? Doesn't exactly show sound judgement and a deep and instinctive sense of proportion does it?

Hardly inspiring of confidence that anything said about the more opaque mission of reading and perception of emotion can be trusted without reservation.

Fatphobia is a systemic issue, meaning it is not about how one feels or an internal experience but a system that is in place to grant some people privilege while oppressing others. 

Stop supporting what is openly wishing to tear you up and find the hell out.

When you are as unmoved by the performance of "weight" talk as those dealing, you'll know better.

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.

How Science Does and Doesn't Go

Here's an example of what you are missing.

"Potential new cure found for baldness" everything is clear in 6 words. The issue: baldness, the aim: to resolve it. Use of the term 'cure' is quaint, from a time when the desire for solutions was evident. It also tells us that anything remotely undesirable easily lends itself toward pathologisation and the language of disease as metaphor.

Along with issue and aim is the need for a target, in this case it happens to be a compound that acts as a brake on hair growth. Amusing given the amount of times I have said usually scientific protocol is to look to stabilise a condition or state-to stop it increasing/moving on/continuing, at the same time as seeking a reverse gear.

Tackling baldness is presented as being about manipulating the action of cells, in an understandable way. It's clear that scientists are doing this for lay people. There's no resentment on the part of the professionals, who do not feel they're being overburdened or taxed by being expected to want to practise what they trained for-in addition to freely choosing what field they wish to engage in. Of their own volition.

All despite the utter triviality of baldness. There's no sense that this is an unworthy investment of scientific resources. Doctors are involved, supporting in this case leading research.

Current remedies, their efficacy and lack of it are accurately rendered, in no sense is a failure of these remedies the failure of anything but those remedies. Reactions to baldness are also allowed to vary. It is made clear some 'suffer', there's a distinct sense that you don't have to.

It isn't required and you are not accused of anything, if you do not by your own initiative choose to suffer from baldness.

Overall the tone is cool, detached and interested in its subject. Shaped by the professionals involved.

Looking at a sample of the most recent article on weight, "Study casts doubt on 'healthy obesity'", it's easy to see it has no real sense of its issue, no desire to resolve, and clearly it is on the attack. It is unfocused, goes nowhere, is highly personalised and seeks only to create anxiety and to demoralise its targets. Not the functioning of the body and its cells, but people.

There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to 'obesity'. The construct itself is the stigma and its operatives are the stigmatisers.

The public go along with this, including fat people, who also allow themselves to be trapped inside its terms.

Happy

Apart from the general quietness of this blog, I must admit, I've struggled to frame a response to Cancer Research UK's recent marketing bombshell, linking human bodies with cancer. The major reason is 'obesity' is a failed term and the framing of weight in terms of risk of weight is dubious and in the finish, irrelevant. Everyone knows the issue is can we reliably and permanently alter weight or not? Secondly, I'm struggling to grasp what if anything the information given could be pointing to.

Have a look for yourself, Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. In the meanwhile, my attention was caught by an article on bulimia, as an illustration of a certain mindset.

On my way to that though, I just saw "I have prostate cancer. But I am happy". It stopped me in my tracks. I was largely indifferent to Monbiot, until this "slim chance" ugh puke [no pun intended]. After that fiasco, I linked him with irritation. Despite that, I wouldn't wish cancer on him or anyone else for that matter. Sad to say that's becoming a somewhat lofty standard.

Under the circs, it can't help but be instructive to hear from someone who actually has cancer;

It would be easy to curse my luck and start to ask “why me?”. I have never smoked and hardly drink; I have a ridiculously healthy diet and follow a severe fitness regime. I’m 20 or 30 years younger than most of the men I see in the waiting rooms. In other words, I would have had a lower risk of prostate cancer only if I had been female.

Straight in with the difference between risk and occurrence. Weight is obviously described in terms of "risk", "association" and "linked with", as that can be controlled through, ahm, statistical determinism.

Disassociation, that is being associated with low risk and being unlinked to that which is baaad cannot though protect you from occurrence. Though clearly it feels like it does. 

What about his reaction to the news, will it be what CR-UK are jonesing for?

And yet … I am happy. In fact, I’m happier than I was before my diagnosis. How can this be?

Is this "denial"?

The reason is that I’ve sought to apply the three principles which, I believe, sit at the heart of a good life.

Um, so deciding and seeking to control the way you feel can change what you feel. Let's see those principles;

The first is the most important: imagine how much worse it could be, rather than how much better. 

Oh I'm feeling that, count your blessings. No matter what people want to say or feel about weight, compared to real illness, it's an embarrassment.

The second principle is this: change what you can change, accept what you can’t.

Well, we all know the changes wrought by decades of attempts at calorie restriction induced weight loss [CRIWL].

The third principle is this: do not let fear rule your life.

Lols;

Fear hems us in, stops us from thinking clearly and prevents us from either challenging oppression or engaging calmly with the impersonal fates.

You don't say? Preach son! No matter what the news, or the intentions of others, we all have to carry on in the way that makes sense to us.

Suffice to say, the intention behind George's rules are the opposite of what crusaders wish to impose on those they consider too weighty,

There are, I believe, three steps to overcoming fear: name it, normalise it, socialise it. For too long, cancer has been locked in the drawer labelled Things We Don’t Talk About. When we call it the Big C, it becomes, as the term suggests, not smaller, but larger in our minds. He Who Must Not Be Named is diminished by being identified, and diminished further when he becomes a topic of daily conversation.

This is interesting, George is saying cancer needs to become less scary. Using cancer to make fear larger not only goes in the opposite direction, it re-invigorates fear toward sufferers."Margaret McCartney: Cancer patients should not be shamed";

....Cancer Research UK has gone large on its publicity campaign about obesity. The plain layout with warning label is reminiscent of a cigarette packet. In what Cancer Research UK itself describes as a “PR stunt,” the charity also created “fake cigarette packets with chips in to visually represent that obesity is the second biggest preventable cause of cancer after smoking.” The effect of this has been somewhat predictable. Some people with cancer have told me that they have felt blamed. Other overweight people have written on social media of how they felt shamed.

Predictable indeed.

Hard though to believe though it may seem, there was a time was a time when cancer had a stigma as great as HIV/AIDS in its earlier days. Doctors even took pity on families-leaving it off death certificates. Sufferers were hidden away by their relatives who often lied about their sickness, for fear of repercussions.

People finally going from shame to anger at the lack of progress is credited as part of the momentum for Richard Nixon's famous War on Cancer, which led to a lot of advances in the treatment of the disease.

It's taken a lot for cancer stigma to be lowered to the point of now and there's obviously further to go. Those who like to fake pathology and disease also like to enforce the reactions of their targets to their various machinations. 

They can't make that realistic either because everyone responds differently to actual disease, often confounding the expectations of fakers.

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.

6 Things The Human Body Doesn't Need

Something from the BBC's "Terrific Science" website "Five things our bodies may no longer need";

The human body is the result of millions of years of evolution. However, it isn't perfect - there are some parts that we've been left with but may not actually need any more. 

That's; wisdom teeth, ear muscles, goosebumps, appendix, tailbone. Five in all. There's a sixth one they've omitted, the human stomach. I say human because no one's trying to remove the stomachs of other animals. I say human as in a human being with a body mass inex of 30+.

...in 1956 ten Swedish women, each at least a hundred and twenty-five pounds overweight, agreed to a trial of an intestinal bypass.  ...then the bypasses were reversed. Now that the patients were at a healthier weight, it was thought, they could maintain that weight with a normal intestinal tract. However, after the reversal surgeries the women regained every pound, sometimes more.

In other words, calorie restriction, which this kind of surgery exists to assist the enforcement of-never mind the flummery about its effect on gherlin and leptin and hunger hormones. This operation says, calorie restriction cannot be usefully maintained with a normal intact body.

Nothing could illustrate the fundamental problem with calorie restriction, it is unsuited to the human body.

It requires the deliberate disabling of the body to implement it. To get a sense of how that fits in with 'health', it's like what smokers and alcoholics are accused of increasing the risk of damaging their organs particularly  the lungs and liver respectively-to the point where they can no longer function.

That is the whole point of bariatric surgery's removal of the stomach, and it directly and immediately does this. It doesn't give it the respect smokers and alcoholics do by giving their organs a chance to recover and restore.

This use of gastrectomy is closer the category of body integrity disorder than medicine which it isn't in any conceivable way. The excuses given that this helps metabolic problems -but the 'obesity' cult is in the way of that, in favouring of imposing cal res.

Body integrity disorder by the way is a dubious psychosis where a person feels the overwhelming conviction that one or more of their limbs is not a part of them or must be removed. Note that article's subtitle asks whether its a good idea or not. Our default is to defend the human body's integrity, unless a terminological construct has bypassed [geddit] your humanness. 

Surgery changes a person into a being with a different intestinal tract, a different hormonal response to food—it’s almost like becoming a member of a new species, one better adapted to our current world. 

Along with the obvious, see the puff about a different hormonal response to food, as if this person doesn't know you don't have to remove the stomach to achieve that.

Guilt-Tripping Alcoholics

The tone of this, though, "Pills prescribed for alcoholism might not work, study finds", oh reahlly? How about finding out one way or t'other? Consider this;

There is no magic pill to cure alcoholism...

What the ever lovin' what now? Magic? Why would the mere cure/reversal of alcoholism be or involve "magic"? 12 step snozzzzeology no doubt. It's at times like this that I almost regret being atheist, so I cannot issue a timely "Why me Lord?"

Aspects of the 12 steps are real and potentially useful-up to a rather limited point. The support group structure can make a difference. This is a no-brainer, when you are out with sympa friends, you know that kind of bullet proof feeling you get? I also happen to think that the "powerlessness" aspects of the 12 steps tend to be misinterpreted by those in disagreement with it. That's more about a shift in energies and is actually worth noting.

The problem is when it doesn't know its place, wildly overrating itself-hardly in line with "recovery".

The ability of even what is useful about it to help maintain a fight against the injury of alcoholism is usually severely limited and it should know this, if its all about honest inventory and all that.

The appearance of relying on it-and that's all it can be- is a cruel, mean-minded way of dealing with alcoholism and shows a blatant disregard for the lives of alcoholics.

It's just punishing them to the point of a death sentence, not for "lacking willpower" but for having bodies that are more susceptible toward alcohol dependency, for whatever reason(s) and I'm not talking emeaushuns. Example from BTL,

I lost a beloved friend to bad choices and alcohol. I eventually had to respect his choices and walk away. His death certificate says his organ failure, at age 44, was caused by chronic alcohol abuse.
Many times since then I've hated myself for not being able to save him. Could I have been there? Could I have changed anything?
So I thank you so much for your post here. For reminding me that the situation was indeed bad juju, and it's okay to just remember him as he was - before we went down the path of no return.

Um hum, her friend had a tendency toward alcohol dependence, that's not a choice. You could say exposure is a choice and yes, it is. I finally realised I just detest alcohol. Before that, convinced by the philosophy of conviviality surrounding it, I attempted on numerous occasions to try and acquire a habit du booze.

Couldn't manage it. If my body had a tendency to submit to alcoholism, then I could have been this woman's friend. It hasn't and that obviously has nothing to do with willpower or "choices". It wouldn't be impossible for me to develop a physical dependence, it would be highly unlikely though, with no effort on my part. I suffer nothing in not drinking alcohol.

Is this really to be classed as some kind of outstanding self-observation?

Are we really so pitifully needy for our own aggrandisement that we no longer have the capacity to refrain from any self flattery no matter how false? Honestly sometimes I despair, it's enough to drive one to drink.

There is no know cure known cure for alcoholism (in the Western model). If there had been, then this dear departed along with numerous others would have, all other things being equal continued to live out a longer lifespan. It is that simple. He did not die from "bad choices" or volition, he died because there was nothing to stop his alcoholism from proceeding to whatever course-including a spontaneous internal or otherwise lessening of the susceptibility he had.

That's what this nonsense cultism does, makes people cast around for interruptions, disrupters subverters of pathology. It is truly disgusting to treat this as just the way things are or even should be.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking to cure/reverse alcoholism, indeed, it is eminently sensible and obvious. AA psychodrama is an interruption of reason, not reason itself. It goes from this in place of nothing, to nothing in the place of this.

I say no to the latter.

I'm not trying to end AA, except with things that work. What I'm attacking is this sensibility that there shouldn't be an efficient safe effective method of cure or a cure for alcoholism etc., because yes there most definitely should.

Nor should any nonsense pitting of it with "therapy" be indulged. There's nothing wrong with therapy, if a therapy could trigger physical healing, that would be the best solution of all. So unless you have that, I'd can the arrogance on that score because there is nothing morally superior about therapy if it cannot predictably demonstrably do the job needed.

Alcoholism and drug addiction for that matter, should be cured/reversed whilst the person is dependent/addicted. In other words, avoiding detoxing and withdrawal altogether or to whatever extent possible. That should be the aim and that aim is entirely legitimate, righteous, noble, clear-headed and morally good in every way, and not in any way magical or somehow untoward.

If the particular mentioned drugs don't work, the appropriate response to that is sadness, for all the alcoholics who have to continue to endure the sentence of a pointlessly arduous fight with the unresolved state they're left in by the indulgent idiocies of those who suffer naught for their lax sub-opinings. Plus hope that there will be proper means of relief in future.

I say good luck to anyone involved in trying to find effective and safe remedies for whatever alcohol dependence actually is, your cause is just, even more so in the face of such thoughtlessness, never doubt that for a second.  And the same to those having to fight an injury people feel shouldn't be healed.

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.

A New Old Life for Gabourey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Umm, not half,

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

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

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

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

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

It's called H-U-N-G-E-R

"Sell high calorie foods in plain packaging to beat obesity, says brain prize winner", a brain prize winner, the Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Prize to be precise, must know exactly what they're talking about.

We are to believe anyone who would even think of gainsaying anything Wolfram Schultz, to put a name to him, uttered on such matters would be some way out of their depth. An "anti-science" sort not worth listening to, isn't that so?  We are all cowered to be sure, 'til we get to the lols.

First, a bit of context,

“We should not advertise, propagate or encourage the unnecessary ingestion of calories,” [really?]

Then he utters the immortal line;

“There should be some way of regulating the desire to get more calories. 

What a fantastic idea, there should be. Wait a minute, there is. I've found it,

H-U-N-G-E-R!

Hand me mucho dinero. Give me a frackin' prize.

I almost don't want to go on as that sums up the mess that is the ob cult and its weight is cals in minus cals used underpinnings. That mes amis is toute-les-choses [I'm feeling all Hercule P]. You need little more to grasp just how much this type of ideology has the minds of its subjects utterly pinioned to the point where reason is wasted on them.

They don't want to deal with hunger, their compulsion to impose it, starvation and anorexia on others is only exceeded by their desire to deny this. Trying to convince everyone hunger doesn't really exist. You don't eat because you are hungry, you're not hungry, you're emotional. 

This man is a scientist but that gives no immunity from this neurosis. He shared a prize for his research into reward systems-not a coinage I've ever had a whole lot of time for, could be worse though. Yet he doesn't actually get that hunger exists to regulate intake.

If he or anyone else feels there's any problem with hunger, then that should be the target of adjustment, not food. I am literally thankful every day that I'm no longer troubled by relentless; hyper functioning, overactive, hypersensitive and implacable hunger I was in the past. Seeking to control what people eat to in this way seeks to replace the adjustment of hunger. They believe they can be your hunger better than your actual function. The one designed for the purpose.

Which doesn't go away, all that happens is the setting up of a clash with these artificial outside bounds. 

Are other people really designed to be your hunger?

Yes, it's true that food manufacturers seek to influence your eating, even to the extent of controlling it, in the sense of wanting you to chose their products over others-whether that works for you or not. However, these people do not arm folk against that, they merely become a counter extreme that turns you into a battleground for their skirmishes with each other.

The problem with the crusade and ci/co is it begins and ends it seems with eating, which is too late in the process. It comes after hunger. Eating is the response to that, not some sinister pathology or original sin.

De-contextualising eating in this way simply becomes a source of further disorder and dietary mayhem. Which intriguingly relates to an area of interest for Schultz, understanding how memories are formed, according to this geeze and others, this could help with learning how to unravel [undesired] memories. Like not being able to remember hunger exists or what its for.

All for the desire to control what other people eat.

No Extension

I had one of my periodic inclinations to write a post about the politics of 'obesity' recently. What derailed the post intended was coming up hard against another clear explanation of what the 'obesity' construct is really means in this preposterous effort by a person paid to teach youth *shudder*.

Incidentally, it throws a tipping point in society's upward curve in body mass the influence of American Negritude on Caucasoidal integrity....file that under btchplz. Nothing to do with the science-blocking refusal to do real research rather than a panto version of it then....

From the nag's mouth;

It was obvious that the young women in my classes were concerned about being accepted for who they are -- excess weight and all.

They saw those extra pounds as an important extension of them as human beings, not as a problem to be solved.

Emphasis mine.

"Saw those extra pounds" as if its some kind of outré phenomena to recognise your whole body as wholly your own. How is it possible to be this idiotic, without shame?

"An important extension of them as human beings," That is exactly where what the term 'obesity' defines starts from.

Here, human being =slim.

It is solipsistic in the extreme expressing as it does the mind of someone else coming up against the difference that is you, unable to expand their frame of reference to accomodate such minimal divergence from themselves.

Seeking instead to subordinate it to their own idea of themselves.

A balloon could theoretically have more or less air in it. That doesn't compute, instead a smaller balloon is contained, in a larger balloon. As if the very idea of a bigger person engulfs the (smaller) observer. Like really? You want people to see this struggle?

Have you so little sense of ambition? Lols.

This smaller balloon in a bigger one is the basis of the 'obesity' construct ideation, its notions of 'obesity' causing this or that issue and "obesity-related".

The bigger balloon you are supposed to be encased in is attacking the smaller balloon within, the real you, the slim person screaming to get out of a fat body. 

This is why I put 'obesity/obese' in quotes, to remind people always that has nothing to do with the way any sane person sees themselves or can see themselves-from the inside out.  Why would I see myself as a locked within a bigger structure when its all me?

'Obesity' is embarrassing for these reasons, not because, wobbly bottoms. Any humour in that pales into insignificance when one asks oneself, "How did wanting to be slim come to this madness?"

Feeling like you've allowed this to be foisted onto you is part of fat people's so called "low esteem." Fat people don't have low self esteem, they have this shit to deal with and they are responding appropriately to that.

Having too look through the 'obesity' cult lens instead of your own. Having to keep going round in the same quack circles, rather than try to understand the genuine complexity and beauty of the way the body regulates its own cells-because people aren't done with pretending this is "science". That's fat shaming. Knowing your place and being kept in it.

Anyone who's been seriously troubled by advance stages of bullying know exactly how it feels to have to act as if bullies lies are real. When everyone turns against you and your friends can't stand by you because they'll be swept away by hate....

Don't make the error of assuming this has anything to do with whether you wish to be slimmer or not. You are not required to compartmentalise your body into mythical parts. Your body is whole no matter whether you want its physical dimensions to be lesser or the same (or greater).

It's as if the impact of the 'excess weight' coinage causes this mind to split another person's body from itself. That's a real dumb-dumb right there. And you're stuck in that.

The Social Model of Dis-Abling

When I first heard about the social model of disability, I was agahst about emphatic nature of those asserting it. The social model of disability is that disabled people are disabled only by society's lack of acknowledgement of their needs, rather than their actual impairments*.

The medical model of disability views disability purely in diagnostic terms, seeing that as the primary cause of the person's difficulties. The social model clearly had a profoundly liberating effect on many disabled people, freeing them from having a burden unforeseen by people like me. The medical model, probably unwittingly dumped the burden of society's neglect of their needs on individual people.

It took the social model for me to realise this.

Subsequently activists and others have found its limitations for themsevles, this doesn't invalidate the positive.

When I came to the fatsphere especially, I said that it was not fat acceptance that was radical or extreme, it was the 'obesity' cult that was outré. What everyone fears about extremists, that they'll set the defining standard, is exactly what 'obesity' cultists and food faddists have managed to do.

The 'obesity' industry's increasing promotion of gastrectomy has presented another surprise.

Gastrectomy disables healthy function to bring about its effects, not as collateral damage for something theraputic.

By this it establishes a notion of disability as healthier state than able-bodied.

As this conclusion is the product of social disapproval, it validates a premise in the social model of disability. That real disability isn't your function, it's in other people's attitude to it.  

* Impairment is a term used by Karen Hitchcock to refer to weight "....no drug can fix the functional impairment of being obese". Though she vociferously refutes the favoured lie that 'obesity' is disease. 

When Food Becomes a Drug, Drugs Become Food

Here's some apt musing from College Humor. I can't recall coming across this phenomena so succinctly put. It reads as a comment on the public health brigade-and the class milieu's they're rooted in's increasing hatred of food and love affair with drugs. Unless its nature's junk; low cal veg and such. I like greens, but they're low in what the body needs most to survive, energy.

It's perfectly okay to turn this on its head and make believe the opposite, as long as you don't expect that to re-design human anatomy and physiological function or to impose it on the unwilling. Alas, 'obesity' constructivists feel exactly that, even if they have to "cut a bitch", lols, to prove it.

College Humor: Your Healthy Friend Who Does Drugs 

It's as if vanquishing the meaning of something as central as what feeds us, leads that meaning to migrate to something else-it can't just disappear. Reminiscent of what's dubbed 'addiction transfer', unsurprisingly yet another product of wrong thinking. That term by the way refers to when a substance is being used for a certain purpose or purposes. On ceasing to imbibe the substance, the purpose remains and some other substance or thing else takes over. The person's 'solution' migrates.

What's really on point is the way the 'healthy' junkie feels drugs are clean and food is dirty, even alcohol which is a food as well as an intoxicant. Ironically, this is treated solely as a drug, which enables her to ingest it liberally, despite it also being a food. It also notes the way 'eating health' leads people to feel healthy. Something fat haters never get about fat people who follow healthist eating diktats/life models. That feeling has led so many fat people to resist weight patholgization-as it conflicts with the health they've been eating (and creating/storing through activity). Fat phobes struggle to grasp that attacking haes, is attacking this feeling in anyone who feels it along with its whole psychological basis.

There's the development of a cognitive black hole where drugs are not only clean but somehow a substitute for dirty old food, when food is being cleaned out of ones life. Food gives energy, certain drugs have a stimulant effect, so drug abuse lends itself to dodging hunger, hence 'obesity' wallahs are peddling "pharmacotherapy"[one shizzes you not], that's drug abuse to "treat" your dimwitted battle with hunger.

Despite spending decades trying to persuade us cake is dirt, there's no shame whatever in trying to push drugs onto fat people, who would normally avoid pushers like the plague (that weight will never be). Somehow taking them to help sustain a fantasy weight loss diet success means they won't attack; your liver, kidneys, eyes, ears, brain etc., Despite them being straight out toxins, if they support the idea of your diet, they're cleansed-Oh Hallelujah!

Any damage they do can be blamed on 'obesity', so w/e's and kar-ching.

This associative impressionistic sensibility was handsomely revealed by the 'clean eating' *shudder* trend. I told people the 'dirt' comes from being associated with FAT/ness, not from anything in these foods. Or else the drugs being peddled to fatz would be deemed unspeakably filthy. Synthetic approximations of all sorts promises another Oxycontin nightmare.

I can't even swear that the real motor for trying to get fat people hooked on drugs is so drug fanciers can finally break the silence on their peculiar attitudes to drug mis-use. Fat people's problem isn't too much gravy, its too little "pharmacotherapy"-every junkie is really into that. Therapy through pharmaceuticals from the disease that is the intolerable feeling of existence.

Which is of course what 'obesity' sets out to achieve, making fatness such an unbearable experience that you'll willingly give up your body parts on promise of escape.

Oh the irony, old time junksters labelled withdrawal "getting clean" now fat has out dirtied junk and slim has cleaned trash up. That could have been the final word on how 'obesity' hysteria has far outstripped even the utility touted by its devotees promoters.

More than anything, the establishment's favoured degeneracy must become everyone's, how can an illusion of faux superiority be maintained if those deemed en bas aren't doing more drugs than you?

What it is, is what it is

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

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

It's enough to make you puke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Something of the Occult......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A sub-Frankenstein effort of epic delusion.

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

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

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

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

Freedom of faith is also freedom from faith.

Slim-Baiting

I've just started reading an article, "Why bad ideas refuse to die". It mentions a young black man-a rapper-who's caught on to someone peddling flat earth. Yes, flat earth. That seems less bothersome than it should given people in white coats go around trying to force "food addiction" as a viable conceit, because they feel entitled.

And yes, I know its referring to certain phenomena, so why not define, describe and name that it veraciously? Isn't it important enough?

The @bese construct has never really a debate. It was cast that way in a knowing attempt to hide its irrationality. It's fat people who keep indulging this pretense-helping to legitimize the uncredible. Why do we feel the need to do this?

Are we looking for slim people to break down and say, "It's a fair cop fatz, we was wrong"? Not seeing them scratch that itch, nor would it be the catharsis of our past imagining. That sort of liberation comes from within us and is in our power.

Have some compassion for slimz, they're out of their depth on this one. Its up to us, whether we like that or not.

I'm asking you for a peer-reviewed study showing that a typical fat person can become sustainably non-fat through deliberate weight-loss

Would it be exaggerating to say, anyone who truly believes anyone can reverse their weight permanently with calorie restriction is up there with the flat earthers? Mostly, I'd say not. It's like asking for proof that someone's born again in JC. It's a suspension of disbelief thing, outside the remit of science-always has been.

It's worth mentioning a fundamental tangle at the heart of all this.

"Weight loss" is entirely possible and Calorie restriction dieting doesn't work. Communiqués go full on cross purpose. One 'side' knows weight loss and reversal of weight is attainable-they're right. The other knows dieting doesn't work-they're right too.

The bottom line is weight loss is not dieting, it is the means of getting you to that destination. It is the wrong means, full stop.

Metabolic function is as plastic, as in the brain and nervous system. It is responsive, malleable, adjustable. It has to be just to fulfil its purpose. Those gatekeeping research are more interested in using fat people as hostages to get dictate the way everyone eats. "...the fight to improve the American diet."

I don't hear manipulating metabolic function in that, do you?

These people are obsessed with controlling what other people eat. Imagine reading a self proclaimed specialist in hepatic medicine's blog, only to find endless screeds about alcohol manufacturers and what ingredients/percentage proof their liquour is. 

It would score high on the WTH meter.

Though some actually seem to have some interest in how to make use of this area of human physiology, the replete disinterest public faces of the "obesity community" as Dr. Arya Sharma calls it have, still dominates as much as their food fixation.

Their lack of curiousity alone is as remarkable as their irrelevance to those who need or want to alter their functioning.

The length of Ampersand's question reflects the conflation of a perfectly reasonable aim-weight loss, that has been torpedoed by being conflated with the metabolically deranging calorie restriction.  "Deliberate weight loss" refers to cal res induced weight loss, but it could and should refer to the painless trouble free weight loss our bodies experience everyday as our bodies convert food into and use energy.

Change would be sustained by that which sustains fatness within a certain range as the overwhelming majority of fat bodies do now-self regulation. They key is a method that doesn't force the mechanics of that to fight off and correct calorie deficit or starvation. 

Reactions to his inquiry have ranged from the usual faith healing standard-that is, if a million people pray for remedy and it happens for one, then one is 100% proof, to the point of describing it as an unreasonable request,

I cannot help but feel this post is a quintessential example of an isolated demand of rigor. Very very few studies in the entirety of the social and medical sciences will fit the criteria he laid out because studies like this are very very hard to do. If this is evidence he requires to be convinced that dieting and exercise for long term weight loss works, then he’ll probably never be convinced because it seems highly unlikely such a study will ever exist, even if diet and weight loss in the long term do work.

Does that sound like someone in charge of themselves? Doesn't anyone feel anything at all about seeing people in this condition? At what point do we become culpable by our indulgence of them? Behaving as if they have a case, rather than giving them short shrift?

Instead of asking slim people the question we know the answer to, let's stop getting them to show themselves up and focus on taking positive action ourselves.

Surgical Experiment

"More obese patients in the UK should be offered weight loss operations, say surgeons". This threw me for a loop the other week. I was unsure why all this push now?

In a joint statement, 45 international organisations, doctors and researchers in diabetes say surgery should be considered as a treatment option for anybody with type 2 diabetes who is obese or even mildly obese (with a body mass index of more than 30) if drugs and lifestyle changes – diets and exercise – do not succeed in keeping their glucose levels under control.

Pocket billiards to that. Weight loss gastrectomy is one big experiment. A follow on from the diet or die. Where are these people when weight outliers are being cut out of their homes, being humiliated and defenceless in plain sight for everyone to have a pop at? Where they to direct humane considerations, dignity and privacy for those people? Where are they to inject a sense of objectivity into people's perception of metabolic function?

The opposite of where they are when its about hacking the vital organs out of bodies their professions have had primary role in devaluing.......for mucho £££'s.

Looking at the subtitle of that article,

Guidance says operations to shrink stomach should be offered to anyone with condition who is obese if other methods have not succeeded

The stomach is a muscular organ, why can't it be shrunk without mutilating it? Forests of worthless "obesity research" drivel is published. Why can't any spare the effort to use anything from the mind to some kind of electronic stimulus shrink the stomach, or turn down the function of the part that they cut out?

If you are going to starve people at least have the decency to turn their hunger to a less than normal level. Or would that prevent weight loss? Hunger is a metabolic function. It seems to run parallel in some way to where metabolism is at in terms of maintaining the body. If you turn hunger down, does that have a knock on effect that reduces body's ability to use up its fat stores?

There are no "other methods" of achieving weight loss on offer. Only various means of going about the same one- calorie restriction, with less or more assistance from such as powerful yet strangely useless drugs or thought re-education.

Ironically, one thing this butchery does get right is adjusting function first with results flowing from that. Whereas willpower only dieting leaves things as they are and just expects you to hurl yourself into the abyss that is a body's superior ability to outsmart your intentions. Rather than adjusting function, it leaves that to strangle or fully/ partially amputate the stomach.

The problem with calorie restriction induced weight loss or CRIWL, is that it is the wrong means of bringing about the purported aim of weight loss. Weight loss is not a technique, its an outcome of other things. The body knows how to do it and does it all the time with ease.

What we need to do is find out how and find the best means of making adjustments to metabolic anatomy to set its mechanisms to a different end or set point. If it can be done in part or whole through the stomach, then find the means of doing that in healthy ways. If we can alter the level at which the hypothalamus is cranking out its various duties, then do that.

In other words, tweak or reset the body in ways that change its set point-then let homoeostasis take aim at that and regulate it. Don't attack the body, use it.

The right means of adjustment will not hurt, cause major discomfort, nor will unravel back to where you started, because you will have changed the start. Regain happens due to the target of homoestasis remaining the same, unless it has shifted spontaneously before, during or after the diet began.

If weight loss was dieting, you'd feel the body's constant back and forth, reversal/advance of your weight all the time. Indeed, it wouldn't happen would it? Another impossible imposed by the phony conflation of dieting with weight loss.

Surgery doesn't remove calorie restriction's imposition of "willpower," or conscious direction, it just lessens it, which is why it tends to succeed better than dieting without surgery. The thing I didn't really grasp was that the more invasive surgery tends to decimate hunger too, at least until healing has (partially?) restored it. This can vary from days, weeks, months years, though the average seems to be between a year and a year and a half. Roughly in line it seems, with the period of greatest weight loss.

A pointer to the extensive and studiously avoided adaptability of the nervous system. Also an example of how hunger doesn't come from one source. I still missed this though.

Its not that hunger is all in your stomach. It's that your whole body is to some degree involved in energy metabolism, all your body's processes run on it. All things being equal-i.e. sans; eccentricities, quirks, malformations, etc., Hunger is unlikely to be solely about the brain.

Nature usually has at least one back up, if not more, especially for things that are this central to survival.

Hunger is overseen in some way by the brain, mainly the less conscious parts, but there are other sites that can have a significant contribution to its tone, tenor and pitch.

The digestive system as a whole is so rich in nerves that it makes a kind of (relatively) primitive brain itself. Other parts of it may also be capable of altering hunger/appetite function.

Such aggression towards the body is not necessary. Its desired by those who wish to insert themselves in between people and their ability to manage their own functioning. A big lever being their on-going refusal to do much about arresting weight in any non-invasive way. No matter what, if you cannot stop a process, it's likely to cause problems at some point.

No one should have to just wait and hope their body stabilizes. It's well within our capabilities to achieve. The will(power) is just not there in sufficient amount. More powerful than that is the urge to block that.

There's been a lot recently about how weight loss gastrectomy provides some great insight into finding out how to make dieting stick. These experts find it easier to mutilate millions and stand by with their algorithms, clipboards and laptops making notes, rather than getting more of a clue about the workings of metabolic physiology.

Like children pulling the legs off daddy long legs and pushing them to see how or if they can walk, so its just so easy to go down this route when you have such a grip on others. To honour and preserve healthy organs is still too much to expect.

It all has a scent of the path of least resistence.

This is 'Obesity'

Sarai Walker's article in NYT tells us exactly what the 'obesity' construct is and is for.

I posted a link on Twitter to a 1969 interview with Jim Morrison, in which he said, “Fat is beautiful.” Minutes after posting the link, a friend responded angrily that being fat is unhealthy because it causes high blood pressure and other health problems. This response, I told the audience, is an example of what I call “Fat Derangement Syndrome,” where even people who consider themselves to be open-minded, critical thinkers become outraged if fat is spoken about in any positive way.

"Fat Derangement Syndrome" is 'obesity'. It's the applied vigiliante style, permanent chorus of disapproval, which is supposed to trigger feelings of unwellbeing in fat people. This can be pointed to as the expression of the pathology of 'obesity'/caused by 'obesity'.

Or what have you got? A lot of hysteria about unhealthy, and a lot of completely tuned out fat people going about their beeswax, being just as un/healthy as they are, no more no less? How easily can you make fool yourself with that?

The much hoped pathology that is the 'obesity' construct can only be made anything like a realistic pretense even for the desperate, with this kind of proactivity. If you really want to believe something, the urge is to act that out where you feel you can. To try and make it happen. Or else, why bother wanting it?

Unfortunately, Sarai Walker like many of the fat activist bent point blank refuse to countenance this, despite heavy prompting. 

During the audience question-and-answer period, people stood up, one after another, and made negative comments about weight.

You don't say.

I felt like a witch surrounded by torch-wielding villagers. It was clear that even for many urban sophisticates paying to attend a festival about difficult ideas, thinking about fat as anything but bad was borderline impossible.

Oh its possible alright, it just not desirable to these folk. If they're so sophisticated, why would this be anything but their decision? This whole rackety ob act wouldn't exist without serious interventions from the white coat mafia, true. However, no-one's stopping the keepers of all human intellect and compassion from seeing right through that. Basic critical thinking would do that.

No one's in a better position to dismantle it than they. If they'd have wanted, they could have saved us all from this by seeing it as beneath their dignity-which it is. The 'obesity' crusade has always been aimed straight at Walker's audience. It knows them, because it is them. It is how they think, especially about those of the lower orders.

Walker can't believe her audience doesn't recognize her. I'm one of you!

Fat activists, those who see themselves as white, middle/upper class educated intelligent etc., refuse to acknowledge that given no comebacks, they too can choose to feel liberated by bigotry. The implications on self identity are sharp but why is that any different for the rest of us?

How do you think I feel about Black people, especially self-declared militant activists, accepting the idea that Black people are lazy and stupid, as long as they're 'obese'? We are talking about their mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts who worked all hours for them and theirs.

I did not need to know it was this easy. But I'm not going to pretend that hasn't happened.

I can see, despite the assumption that Black people live to cry "racism" at every turn, the sheer fatigue with politics. How wonderful to be able to achieve radical change that's wholly internal? The power is yours.

Black or otherwise, fat people are imbued with the magic of totally existing in an ether untouched by the laws and mechanisms of society.

If I ignored all this and pretended its purely about don't know, it would be erasing and ignoring those feelings. Whilst I don't respect the craven submission to 'obesity' folklore. There is something deeply condescending about behaving as if they're under any real duress to feel this way. It's collusion pure and simple.

Something else;

Backstage, the moderator of the event asked if I was O.K. This wasn’t the first time someone on my tour had pulled me aside to ask that question. I said I was fine, but in the hotel that night, I crawled into bed, relieved that I no longer had to perform as a professional fatty. I wanted to go home and hide. I am ashamed of this response. I wrote a novel to give fat women a voice, but then became exhausted using mine.

That is the best description of "political correctness" I think I've ever read. How ironic that she thinks that's the source of her pain! Rather than her refusal to see people want her to feel bad, feel ill, so they can say-that is what we are talking about. So they can validate their assertions. That's how brittle and willfil the ob cult is. 

The real consideration is not to feel like you're fronting with an insouciant 'tude. It's to recognize the limits of identity. That you have to be able to be more important than whatever group you feel part of. That you can and must be capable of standing aloof from them. Knowing that they are wrong and you are right.

If the boot was on the other foot, wouldn't you want them to stand their ground against your wrongness? How many times have your mistakes been corrected by those who refused to submit to you[r identity]?