Surrender Manqué

"Tom Watson: how I lost seven stone and reversed my type 2 diabetes" This man is deputy leader of her Majesty's Opposition. 

....it has taken more than 25 years to gain control over his diet and exercise.

Taken on face value, a person has taken over a quarter of a century to "control" their diet and exercise. That's subject to conformation, by explaining the nature of the day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, decade by decade effort to arrive at this conclusion.

Or perhaps it is not a day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, decade by decade effort, maybe its just time and then suddenly, the moment.

Either way, the big question is why not just find a way of shortening such effort to say, 25 months, weeks, days, hours, or even minutes? What about this process takes so long and cannot be shrunk into a more scientific size?

Question: Why is it okay for this "control" to be randomly acquired over a long stretch, but not for it to be brought about in good time through concerted action?

In case anyone needs reminding, science is appropriately and contextually time-limited. If you cannot achieve an effect in a timely manner, then you cannot test it, it cannot be said to fail. Exceptions are things like observing an effect like an eclipse or w/e is different, that is a natural phenomena.

When it comes to bringing about an effect, it cannot go on indefinitely. Your computer won't load, the person at the computer repair shop says it takes up to 25 years to tell either way, that's clearly tripe.

You don't want me to go through what this is all about again do you? Nyaaaaah, okay. Once more from the top.

You have committed a crime-taken more than your (fair) share.

You must payback your debt to society-in the form of starvation and enforced labour.

This however is outside jurisprudence, it's sort of 'moral' socially enforced. So, there is a purpose, you are doing this to slim. That was only sufficient for a while, so professionals came back with, it's for your health.

It is "unhealthy" to be BMI 25+, ergo you must starve and sweat. Even if this was genuine and not contrived, it is of course an argument for science. But science won't deliver punishment, equally, punishment doesn't deliver slimness.

Answer: Everything is about shoring up the notion of your criminality/pathologisation-the 'obesity' construct, pressing you to bread 'n' water + the treadmill and trying to force that into the appearance of a perfectly rational way to regulate body mass and/or health.

That's why over 25 years of mysterious process cannot be edited. You need to get smacked up by being set up for failure.

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. 

Currently, this pathologisation-punishment-metabolic derangement has moved from calories/ low-fat to sugar as arch villain. This enables the tired diet success stories we hear every day of our existence in the never-getting-slimmer-society, to be freshened up into-it succeeded this time because the problem is sugar.

I consider myself diabetic and a reformed sugar addict because I know that if I take sugar in again, the condition will come back.

You consider yourself to be something biologically insupportable. And in case you're wondering "reversing diabetes" means lessening the symptoms, not what is being implied.

And if you think after over 25 years of ______ this man had paid his debt to society, you'd of course be wrong.

It wasn’t a huge shock – there had been warning signs, such as his increasing weight and high blood pressure – for some time, but it was still a blow. The overwhelming emotion was shame,” he says. “I felt frightened and ashamed that I had come to this point, and guilty. I’ve only admitted it publicly now.......it was a combination of lack of knowledge and fear; for a year or two I was in denial.  ...he started exercising, which wasn’t easy because he was so heavy. “The first time I went up the steps, I felt I would probably need oxygen at the end of it. ......“The office would always laugh at me because I would cling to the wall when I got to the top.   ........he would attempt press-ups. “It was incredibly humiliating to start with. I looked pathetic.

Even that's not enough, he still has to serve his life sentence,

He now does two cardio workouts a week, such as running on the treadmill or doing 5km outdoors, or a boxing session; does weight-training a couple of times a week; and walks a lot. “I hate going to bed at night not having done 10,000 steps.”

...with poss an amputation down the line [I'll leave you to speculate on which kind], if it all falls down.

On top of that, he has to embarrass himself by publicly revealing just what a craven whipped pup he is. He is a forelock tugger, a knee-bender a lickspittle. And he wants to spread this good news to others.

Righty-o.

Though this is supposed to represent the left of UK politics. Someone who has so little respect for his own humanity.

One thing amputating the stomach has confirmed is that both hunger and appetite for certain foods can be altering via metabolic function- without buggering up, therefore altering the digestion.

It often leads to astonishing changes in the way things taste, making cravings for a rich slice of chocolate cake or a bag of White Castle hamburgers simply vanish. In contrast, patients who had bypass and sleeve operations reported that they were not particularly hungry afterward, and that their incessant urges to eat vanished. Even more surprising, their taste for food often changed. Dr. Lee Kaplan, an obesity researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, recalled a patient who asked him: “Are you sure they didn’t operate on my brain? Food does not call out to me anymore.” Another, who used to seek fatty and sugary foods, said, “I crave salads now.”

Ignore Kolata's 'hive-body' stance. It has been known for ages that your hunger levels and appetite-including your tastes and the balance of them, are defined by the external pressures and internal needs acting on and within you. By doing such as adjusting the activity in your nervous system, in the right way, you can reduce hunger and alter your appetite.

That's the way round it ought to be. It should not require suffering. Physical conditioning is one thing, but it should not be the way weight or health are regulated.

All this rigmarole is a product of punishment and mutilation is a product of trying to make punishment do what is demanded. How will everybody, health care professionals especially, be made to get over urges that defy all reason, yet find so little opposition?

Proper Diagnosis is not Alt-Justice

"I'm an addict- and I know what Harvey Weinstein has isn't addiction". The title stopped me in my tracks. Having experienced internet know-it-alls yapping; "Anything can be an addiction", when not even food can be excluded;

Eating 30 doughnuts in a row every morning – that’s what someone could call an addiction.

It's hard to imagine what actions could possibly be more lacking in criteria for 'addiction' than that which is necessary for life.

The answer though not unfamiliar in tone, still surprised me, which is good;

By rushing straight off to rehab, Weinstein is begging for our compassion: “I know I hurt these women, but it’s an addiction! I need a second chance!” No mate, you messed up your second chance the second time you treated a young woman as your personal plaything

Umm, yes, buuut, him asking for a second chance can be dismissed outside of any considerations of whether he has a pattern of symptoms which meet diagnostic criteria, or not.

Diagnosis should neither be reward nor punishment. It's not validation or negation of suffering, identity, social value etc., Its considerations are purely presence or absence of any condition. Treatment too should not be about "compassion" or lack of it, but of efficacy-that is the ability of any remedy to effectively and efficiently bring resolution or cure of said pathology.

Crimes are tried by the legal system, not by medicine.

Health must not continue down the road of becoming an alternative system of justice. Health vigilantism is deliberate politic of science-blocking, regressiveness and should be perceived as such. It views science that solves problems as political, as progressive and antithetical to its own political take. Science =knowledge, kind of like Adam 'n' Eve and the tree of knowledge.

[I know]

Obviously, 'obesity' is a primary example of this.

Health is becoming a means of bypassing jurisprudence, handing out punishment. Led by the Liberal/Left, guardian hard selling the brutal punishment of gastric mutilation.

Ergo when an allegedly bad person wishes to be relieved of a health pathology, that turns into a moral problem, rather than no different than if the same person has to go to hospital with a sprained ankle [acquired by tripping over a gargantuan ego.]

12 step bunkery, as well as 'obesity' and its crusade is largely driven by a conservative polity. It's not even as if this has ever been hidden! It is about a particular take on human nature, rather than health or medicine. It makes the idea behind those political parties named such as "Christian Democrats" etc., make more sense [to me]. 

Yeah this alt kind of justice is supported by all comers and some of the few who oppose it or aspects of it are conservatives, but what is being supported above all is the politic of injecting a conservative/right-wing mentality into what could be deemed medical science. [You'll need a translate if you don't speak Portuguese.]  


Let's refresh on the saggy, baggy criteria that is now addiction;

Behavioral addiction is a form of addiction that involves a compulsion to engage in a rewarding non-drug-related behavior – sometimes called a natural reward– despite any negative consequences to the person's physical, mental, social or financial well-being.

Behavioural addiction, is not addiction it is referencing nervous or neurotic compulsion.

It’s a compulsion: he feels that if he doesn’t act on it, the sky will fall on his head or something.

That's compulsion and compulsion is not addiction, though addiction could be said to be a form of compulsion. And, "rewarding non-drug-related behaviour", well?

 Seeing as the above says, "type" of addiction, we'll continue on to "addiction";

Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.

Compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, does Weinstein's alleged activities match that, yes or no?

Furthermore;

Despite the involvement of a number of psychosocial factors, a biological process..... is the core pathology that drives the development and maintenance of an addiction.

Biological process? "....one which is induced by repeated exposure to an addictive stimulus". Shappi's objections are foundering on falsifiability. How can you exclude anything from that which was drawn not to exclude anything anyone wants to shove under 'addiction'?

It has never occurred that enforced 12 step quackery is also bad because its very inefficacy draws a heavier reliance on things like dispersing bad feeling, potentially, up to and including that which is something to feel guilty about. I was thinking in terms of relieving unnecessary suffering and inconvenience.

If we actually stopped using hate and other negative emotions for so called public health campaigns, and sought cured addiction proper along with nervous compulsion, then each person is free to feel feelings apt to their situation, whatever that is.

If 'compassion' is the treatment or a major part of the treatment for 'addiction'/sexual compulsion then if Weinstein meets the symptomatology, he should have every expectation of receiving the treatment available, regardless of his criminal status, just like any other condition or injury to his person. 

To emphasise the uselessness of faddiction to those currently looking to "food addict"- as some kind of promotion from "greedy" or whatever;

In responding to the ever-growing claims against him, the man who not so long ago was one of Tinseltown’s greatest titans has told reporters he is seeking help for sex addiction, which is an outrageous attempt to dodge the reality of his behaviour.

Underneath it all, perfectly thoughtful people consider "addict" to be dodging responsibility. Do you think that represents a life time of stepping up without hesitation and saying; "I am responsible for my weight"?

If you want to see this as a deal, it's a worse one. Not only can it not dispel the taint of your definition as inherently pathological ('obese'), it adds to that, dodging responsibility, something most have never done out of choice.

Try to see through your desperation for relief, only real answers to actual problems will do. Value yourself enough to remain clear-headed enough to demand them, that's the part of the validation you're missing, its within you, it's not the gift of your tormentors.

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?

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]?

Media Clamour for "Obesity Science" to Start Managing Metabolic Function

Riiiight.

I'm reminded of what still isn't happening amid the clamour to monitor metabolic outliers. In this case children. If only a modicum of such attention was paid to the useful outcomes of "obesity science", well, I was going to say we wouldn't be here. But I know that we are here because people want that. This may have slipped notice if the extent of self kidology falls at the 'morbid' end.

The infinitesimal number of children concerned should give a clue that this is probably about functional issues in these children. 11 yes, eleven children have achieved an outstanding BMI of 40 and 475, 35+, well done them. It's hard to really stand out nowadays unless you are a chosen piñata for stupid adult reality-reality games.

They don't want to free you children because they still want to carrying on playing-you know how that is. 

Those children are out of a bit under 13 million people aged under 19. Together they are not even a respectable fraction of one percent.

They complain about it to (partially) convince themselves that they're against this. The idea of using fat people to achieve whatever ends others think they (ought to) want but in reality aren't necessarily so keen as they want to be, still seems to be a droit de seigneur.

That feeling is part of the attraction, feeling righteous without the consequence of having to spoil it by following through or not, with action. That same stasis to preserve a cherished fantasy applies to the whole crusade proper.

Flaccid ritual blame flaps around like a deflated balloon; "Parental irresponsibility", "How can parents allow their children's weight to go there?" Stale. Plus the more ominous,"It's bordering on the criminal." The determination to maintain this contrived state of "obesity crisis" is palpable.

A nutritionist was interviewed about this enervating click bait, who agreed this was the parents fault,  admitted that this actually incorrect blame is pointless and "gets us nowhere." The weariness with which she said this is good news, sorry, no one should feel the defeat of the trap all fat people are in than the wretched gatekeepers of it.

She switched aim to the current 'obese' cult modality, the 'obesogenic' society. This posits (ultimately) that weight must be controlled from without-the same as abusing fat people regulates/contains our weight. Headaches are trivial compared to 'obesity' zomg death propaganda, yet, imagine being told, no more painkillers, instead, we will seek reduce the [head]ache-o-genic aspects of society?

In utopian terms, one cannot say that's a bad desire or wish. But it is brutally inefficient at meeting your needs for control of how you feel. It effectively leaves people powerless-if you believe that one cannot do anything about headaches which of course I don't.  This lack of anything efficient, direct and useful to the individual is no accident.

The nutritionist had the nerve to state that vested interests perpetuate this obesogenic society. Clearly illustrating that these children's bodies-along with other fat people's-are being held ransom to in this instance the desire to dictate what people should eat.

Can you believe this is really happening?

A watch should be kept on the question of what the individual can directly do to stabilise any aspect of their metabolic function, wrt weight. And the answer remains little to nothing. Impersonating anorexia whilst training like a professional athlete does not manage metabolic function. It seeks to deprive the body of energy in order to get it to raid your fat stores. What I did was not direct.

Weight loss dieting/exercise as well as being pretty worthless in the main, are not direct either.

It's sort of the difference between being able to turn a tap on and off, varying its flow and having to have it left on at whatever rate it is flowing and arrange your life around scooping out water to stop your sink/bath from flooding your home.

This has the meanness of the truly stupid.

The complete lack of content should be obvious and it should offend the intelligence of everybody. Not simply a lack of symptomatology or aetiology but genuine context. These children often require investigation. Some of them will have been born with undiagnosed hypothalamic/brain function problems that show up at an early age [strangely enough the age of 3 keeps coming up-is that a metabolic developmental milestone?]

The unusual extent and/or duration of distress on the prospect of withdrawal of relief from hunger. The ferocity and consistency of gain is even more of a signal, which is of course, what they're actually reporting on.

There is no management of weight without techniques to alter/manage metabolic function. That would be altering something fundamental about the (dys)function going on here. The rate at which the body stores and/or spends energy. Hunger/appetite is a metabolic function, not a habit of thought, altering that, turning it down, if only to relieve the distress of excess hunger/appetite would be a start.

I say this again to "obesity science" even if you can't care about adults, for goodness sake [literally] can't you care something for these children?

Using Dead Infants to Promote Calorie Restriction

Using percentages

The headline reads;

"Weight gain between pregnancies linked to stillbirths and infant deaths"

Linked is always a word to watch out for when it comes to "obesity related". It usually means-linked to being noticed in a fat person- (it only takes one). The sub-heading is;

Swedish research shows women who put on weight after first pregnancy increase risk of stillbirth by 30-50% and likelihood of infant death by up to 60%

There's the use of percentages. It means the starting figure is not impressive enough even for 'obesity' wallahs, used to speaking with at best a microscopic level of critical scrutiny. 

To be fair, they know some of us are wise to their phoned-in manoeuvres;

Because infant death and stillbirth are relatively rare, the increased risk does not equate to large numbers of deaths.

You know it.

Carry on bullshitting in the face of fact

Next we have carry on regardless.

But experts say stillbirths and infant deaths are already unacceptably high and that it is important to look for ways to help women who become pregnant keep their weight down.

That's a big "But".

The death of an infant is tragedy, though not enough to overcome the urge to control people's eating. These tragedies are to be prostituted for the purpose of dieting, same as anything. Despite the fact that it usually increases the effect being reported. Women should be anorexic a lot anorexic, though not to the extent of dying, because that would be "going too far."

Back to metabolic function

Let's go back a tad.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the study is referring to women who gain weight after their first pregnancy.

They're said to be more likely to have a subsequent child whose stillborn or dies within their first year- whatever their starting weight.

This is genuinely intriguing.

Pregnancy is a time when many if not most women find they gain weight easily. This is due to the body often increasing its energy conservation-rather like when re-gaining weight after diet induced weight regression. The body instinctively lowers its output in order to protect the energy supply, in this case, to the foetus.

Rebounding to the mean

The body can vary tremendously in its ability and extent of reverting back to pre-pregnancy levels of expenditure and storage (of fat and supporting tissue). Restoration to the (prior) mean can happen partially, or (seemingly) hardly. Ditto the period of time over which any metabolic reversion occurs.

Women who lost weight between the first and second birth were at lower risk of having a stillbirth or infant death.

If this is as read, reversion is likely to signal the body's sensitivity to calorie restriction, which is also dependent on the state and response of ones metabolism. As readers of this blog know, weight is all about metabolic function-basically, the rate at which the body generates/replenishes and destroys its own cells. This stillborn/early death effect appears to be related to those bodies whose metabolism is less exact in its restoration of pre-pregnancy function. Potentially reducing the stream of energy available to the developing foetus and/or its ability to meet any extraordinary needs.

Energy conservation

It's somewhat speculative, but the energy conservation displayed in this weight gain could conceivably deny a subsequent foetus a high enough degree of sensitivity it may require to be fully viable at birth or up to its first year. That could also include an issue of timing in that the (slightly?) inexact energy stream may tell at some points of foetus's formation than at others, as in affecting some body systems more than others.

Metabolic manipulation

I used to say back in the day that if men got pregnant, they'd be a whole discipline dedicated to restoring them and their function to pre-pregnancy states. I was thinking as much in terms of appearance as anything.

Why some women, if not many or most women do not "snap back" more readily to their pre-partum state, has always puzzled me. In the same way that the overwhelming majority of people's bodies, thin to fat alike, return to their pre-diet weight over time. So too should women bodies return more to pre motherhood state with such momentum. Perhaps they do more than appears from our vantage point.  Homoeostasis if you will, works both ways.

It exists to maintain a consistency of function. The expected completely different looking body after giving birth is yet another example of the rules being made by a lack of intervention, rather than some assumed hard and fast rules of nature-as in "I'm meant to be 12/15/ 25 stones." Too deterministic, there's just no clear route to reversing weight.

The price of anorexia worship

This could well be, along with the much forgotten people who cannot retain weight, yet another example of the price paid for refusing to approach weight honestly, as a metabolic issue, rather than via a stupid crime and punishment angle. You must serve a life sentence of anorexia for your crime of in this case, mere weight gain.

If the white coat mafia could have just treated fatness via metabolism, heaven knows what they could have achieved by now.

As this list grows ever longer, we have to marvel at how much knowledge we are sacrificing to the dominance of these lifestyle anorexia promoting wing-dings. 

Obese Extremist

A priceless lesson in how the fake evil of pathologization punctures perception of true evil. If you turn people into a joke, you cannot become serious about what them via the same source.

Perversely, only through re-humanizing them-dropping the 'obese construct' -can the truth of the evil a person does come to the fore unimpeded by slapstick.

Witness DM's extraordinary ability to do something I didn't think possible. To make 'obese' sound cool.

• Obese executioner
• Obese extremist
• Mammoth Extremist

Every single one sounds like one of those fascinating anti-heros.

I stand corrected.

Up until this point the evil acts of ISIS have only chilled me to the bone. That is now over thanks to the DM who've managed to contrast themselves with a pre obese-stimming consciousness. Terrorists apparently nicknamed this "tubby" executioner the "Bulldozer".

A mainstream news organ ends up sounding like those who sark any horror.

Strangely this is one of the first times the DM has failed to redundantly insert 'obese' into its headline. The need to disconnect you from this person is removed by their own actions. It reads: "ISIS's masked 20st monster."*

Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't provoke much emotion. The whole point of neuro-typical obese stimming is to present fat people as monsters, beasts. I've been called that numerous times, not to mention the frequent terminology using large mammals (such as mammoths) favoured by banal trolls.

To make it clear this particular "obese extremist", who has tortured and murdered people, execution style. It's not the usual reference to a self aware kind of "obese extremist". This terrorist amputates the healthy body parts of those who do not fit into his particular worldview. He and his cohorts feel they need to have parts of them missing in order to fit in. 

How extraordinary.

He's also described memorably as "one of ISIS's most unsightly executioners", there was a beauty contest to decide: Mr ISIL? Note the order in that quote and tell me again that "body dysmorphic disorder" comes out of nowhere like a 'disease' or is induced by how many likes your selfies garner.

The "unsightly" nature of this "obese individual" is used to serve as reflection of his evil. As with Bond villains, there's confusion here. And no, I'm not going to act like I need to prove anything by hastily adding how deeply against this or that I am. That too has been debased. I'll take for granted that you can tell.

If only I hadn't reacted so much to the insistence that Freud was science all those years ago, then I'd be able to say with authority rather than instinct that this reads Freudian-like with the shadow of size=beauty (or absence of)=morality replacing sex or the pleasure principle as motivational subtext.

This conflation of morals with size doesn't explain "healthily weighted" ISIS.

It brings back the way 'obese' finally alerted me to one way socio/psychopathy can be invoked in a person. By convincing a child that they're evil, when later child catches on that they aren't, their feeling about real malice and evil can be undermined, blunted. Because they believed they were evil and now they know that real feeling wasn't. 

Like exposure to constant friction creates a callous that numbs the area.

I'm neither, but I must confess, evil doesn't feel quite the same as it did before the extent of fake evil became obvious. If that sounds odd or even a little shocking, that's because it hasn't become so to you.

The person writing this article couldn't find a way to talk about a fat person any other way. Seems they felt that this because this person was actually bad, saying their worst would be apt. That 'worst' is not what hurts people.  Fat phobia causes hurt because people are upset that you are upset with them. They hurt because you appear hurt. They hurt because of love not hate.

Remember fat isn't evil.  It's not even a misdemeanour. Hatred is a product of the mind of the hater, not a reading of truth. It's an act of imagination.

This maniac is not.

Only in the last two paragraphs does this article retain gravitas commensurate with the of evil it reports, when it focuses on one of this man's victims. A 14 year old boy who had both his hand and foot cut off with a sword, in front of an audience.

Its final paragraph forgets weight all together and concentrates on a murderer, killer and psychopathic zealot. Something those who aren't can only yearn for. 

More ironically still, the comment section is not unpleasant to read, featuring only one attempt at humour. 

* This has been subject to subsequent amendment the whole headline now reads

ISIS's masked monster: Revealed, the tubby jihadi executioner dubbed The Bulldozer who's part of terror group's 'Chopping Committee' bringing horror to captured Iraqi towns

Again "tubby jihadi" derails the seriousness of what the headline is talking about. The history is indicated in the address bar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263008/ISIS-s-heavy-weapon-fear-Revealed-20st-executioner-dubbed-Bulldozer-s-terror-group-s-Chopping-Committee-bringing-horror-captured-Iraqi-towns.html

Thank You "Morbidly Obese"

Though you are stupidly dubbed "morbid," you are life-enhancing characters. Size 14 which is really a size 16 of more recent times, would have been seen as fat. 

Now undercover 16 has become an acceptable size.

Why?

Because fatter people that's why.

I was going to say what morbid obesity is, but it's kind of an on-the-fly type deal. One day its at this point, the other day its at the other. It's not as if its scientific or anything.

Thanks to this concept, those who are actually quite well-covered can go on pretending to a slimness they've probably lost or never possessed in the first place. Those who are chubby or mildly fat, look at fatter folks and can feel societally acceptable, thanks to "morbid obesity." I wonder if that was always part of the rationale behind the term?

Such foresight.

It is astonishing that those within clear sight of slim even thinness don't want to set an example. That must be pure choice. Because dieting though it doesn't work would be so easy and painless for the none-too-slim/plump/mildly fat. It's easy to keep on doing it everyday for the rest of your life. Especially when you're that close.

It's probably easier to be slim than plump. They can at least try, because trying and failing looks different than not trying at all.

Think about it.

Despite this "morbidly obese" favour, barely slim/chubby/fattish ingrates actually seem to be trying to direct vilification at you, taking itoff themselves. How low is that? How shabby to sell out others just to take the heat off yourself. 

Some people will do anything to avoid the threat of negative scrutiny which is odd, given they tend to keep saying-its no big deal and isn't negative enough anyway, when they put it on others.

They must be mistaken about that if they're prepared to look this bad throwing people under the bus to avoid it.

A pity they don't feel any sense of solidarity for others and their feelings.

One has to wonder if that kind of shabby no-account venality is the key to having a BMI under whatever "morbid obesity" is this week. Could be, all avenues must be considered.

And anyway, proposing that much vilification ought to be directed at fatter people is not efficient. Logic would dictate that vilification should be directed at those nearest to weight acceptability, because they could so easily become truly stand-alone acceptable.

Let the tearing apart of them begin.

"Dr" David Cameron

Oh boy. Just as I was talking about [neurotypical] stimming compulsion of repeating 'obesity'/'obese' manically-to anchor yourself in the feelings those terms conjure up- a story comes along [doesn't one inevitably?] illustrating that this nervous tic is becoming increasingly useful. The Guardian;

David Cameron calls on the obese to accept help or risk lose benefits.

"Help"? You're calling slimming clubs "help"? Even the Mail says;

Go on a diet or lose your benefits........ The obese, drunks and drug addicts will have to seek help or lose benefits.

Direct if nothing else. The Independent;

Obese could be ordered to 'lose weight or lose benefits' if the if the Conservatives win general election

The BBC;

Obese could lose benefits if they refuse treatment

Yeah, keep being a docile mouthpiece for your political establishment chums.

This concerns a state benefit-Employment Support Allowance [ESA]-for those judged, and I mean officially examined by a medic, too sick and/or disabled to work. This proposal aims to target roughly 100,000 people said by the PM "Dr" David Cameron, to have "treatable" conditions. Okay? Right.

Those with such "weight problems" number around 2,000. Despite making up such a small percentage of the total, 'obesity'/'obese' was at the forefront of coverage. Cameron is quoted as saying;

Some [people] have drug or alcohol problems, but refuse treatment. .......In other cases people have problems with their weight that could be addressed - but instead a life on benefits rather than work becomes the choice.

'Obesity'/'obese' seems to be an easier more emotive target than drug addicts or alcoholics. A sort of human shield in reverse, setting the mood to view (contaminate) the rest. Also 'obesity' references more people, though the targets of this are a statistically infinitesimal subset. It's also part of the idiot bourgeoise self-dramatizing love affair with faux addiction and their insistence on imposing a false consciousness on fat people.

The biggest question mark of  all is that anybody could receive sickness benefit merely for being fat. I'm going to need direct evidence of that. An excellent comment from maple5 picked up on this;

No one would be able to be signed on to ESA with the current descriptors, simply for being obese. Even those unable to walk far would not pass, as for ESA the test is for "mobilising - which incudes the use of a wheelchair. In order to claim ESA or PIP the person would have to be so obese that they were unable to care for themselves/bedbound.

If you can't get about unaided, your problem is mobility. If actual problems were dealt with it would open the way for more of the same. Unsurprisingly, the media didn't elect to pick up on this, presumably, going with their feelings-don't worry though, there's "treatment" for that.You can tell a lot by the euphemistic use of that word, and 'therapy' as in "pharmacotherapy" in place of diet/ semi-starvation.

In deciding disability, Social Security will consider obesity only if it causes or contributes to listed impairments or severely limits your functioning.

I can see a few things on that list that are easier to reverse in more enjoyable, healing ways than anything available to go to war with metabolic function. I wouldn't rule out anyone being on benefit purely for 'obesity'. I'd have to see every single diagnosis-in full, which would be a violation of privacy-to accept such dubious assertion. But even this cant surely can't survive - fat people can get sick, or be/come disabled. Unless fatness is immunity from either-the ultimate "obesity paradox".

I'd also have to cast a beady eye on the other targets, are they really simply addicted to drugs/dependent on alcohol, or do they have sickness and/or disabilities too? There seems to be the same self delusion we see in the ludicrous "obesity cost" hype.

There's of course no "treatment" for 'obesity' as it isn't sickness-ironically, if it were it might give those trained to investigate pathology more to go on. Who's actually looking for what would be needed for these people to re-set the course of their metabolic function, regardless of outcome?

Permissive punitiveness doesn't go with scientific or medical progress. It proliferates as if an intellect sapping fungus. Once allowed to get hold, it is a compulsion rolls over everything, creating a regression that becomes self perpetuating. Eventually, nobody knows anything but the lies that feed it. 

Similar has happened with alcoholism and drug addiction. The latter especially has been open policy. Either endure painful even life threatening withdrawal and potentially paralyzing cravings, or piss off and die. Knowing- its all your fault.

Though addiction as a metaphor is entirely cynical and not at all useful for anyone, those fat people who reach the highest weights have been placed in a similar position. The difference being that blocking hunger signalling is a pathology- whereas blocking an acquired urge for drink or drugs, isn't. Though the latter is mainly almost as futile and abstinence rather cruel and at times perilous. Which is why when your doc prescribes junk, s/he's a pains to tell you never to stop it abruptly. 

That doesn't apply to illicit drug takers though, 'cos whatev's. 

The prospect of contriving other people's death isn't enough relief for the urge to punish, punish, punish, a society tacit in this degeneracy is to be seen as the victim of it!

Real treatment requires consent. Indeed that's usually an integral part of the process, when its not based around medicaments-unless the person's a danger to themselves. This is a good reason why. So called "treatments" can be shockingly toxic and ineffectual. Missing from this is the sense that long term experience might have revealled this.

Britain's Fattest Woman

Has left the building. I've seen her before. Her name turns out to have been Brenda Flanagan-Davies. If you scroll down, you may recognize that picture of her with an open fridge and somewhat rascally gaze. It features heavily-take the pun if you want it-in FA spaces. It's a troll bomb fave par excellence. Someone adds a tagline that really tickles their insensibility: "My genes are in the fridge" or something of that sort.

I'm sure you feel the funny-fat people insist fatness is genetic, but really, it's because they eat too much from the fridge, geddit?

Unlike slim people who do not claim anything is genetic and rarely that they can't help themselves [it's an illness], which is why that's (not) funny. It's the contrast between stoical slim people and entitled, always blaming something else, never themselves, fat people.

Now I'm laughing.

Sadly, Brenda's another who's fallen foul of the extra-judicial death sentence that is having a body that excels at storing energy. Because when you get down to it, that seems to be the capital 'crime'.

You could say, she ate "too much", but hey, if she'd ate the same and her body had stored less/wasted more-I'm not even talking being slim, I'm talking say to the point of her being half the weight stated for her 40stones/254kg/560lbs. She mightn't have been quite so stuck in the trap laid out for her.

Again I have to ask, how much is the absence of any sense that an extraneous appetite is not just "being fat" but a disorder that can be rebalanced or at least reduced? All that's needed is some endeavour to try it out say at the "bariatric" wards/centres, not so much springing as creaking up here and there.

Gadzooks, there's even the remoteness possibility of them becoming slightly useful to some very marginalized fat people. Heaven forefend they not be little more than lipsmacking holding pens for the cutty men (they seem to be mainly) to cut a swathe.

It was said she was-"Britain's Fattest woman "- never quite understood why fatness brings out this type of competitive impulse. The fattest man, woman, child in so and so. "We're the fattest country" "No! We're the fattest country- if you measure it by body fat percentage/separate/amalgamate women from men/include/exclude other jiggery pokery etc., etc.,"

Rarely is there such competitiveness about who's the thinnest person country [is there?] You'd think that would be the point of competitive fevour, but fattest really is the prize fat phobes want-strange. Maybe it's like a sling shot-the bigger the takeback, the more forceful the shot.

Those reaching the highest weights usually have a conjunction of factors going on, often their bodies are outstanding in all of them. Their bodies store like fury, they have some factor, often in childhood that seems to dissemble/stretch any area of landing or set-point: bereavement/separation, abuse, neglect. Puberty or pregnancy can be added to that or be the entry point of this store like anything, occasionally menopause too. I've seen it happen, after a lifetime of slimness. Not to mention a period of ill health/health challenge, medication...

Some people's food environment is high on calorie density, though that's not always the case. And of course slim people exist there many of them not particularly small eaters-though it is always presented that way.

It's also worth mentioning that a few people may be displaying sub-clinical versions of certain fattening syndromes, like that identified as hypothalamic obesity. Hyperphagia obviously, but even things like a strangely disassociated/removed/spaced out countenance, a disproportionately distended belly-even before fat goes on top of that.

Not to mention again, rampant unchecked hyperphagia nervosa, which is classed in the anorexia dominated field as an eating disorder, when really its heightened and/or hyperactive hunger. It's an over function of that, like heightened temperature, the thing is to lower it. Not to talk nonsense about complexity and fee fees.

All this may or may not be down to funky wiring, hypothalamic lesion/malformation. Even leaving apart the more arcane problems, you'd think the ED would be an accessible target for even the most bovine ci/co wingnut.

That if nothing else was done, learning to turn down people's hunger-without drugs would be worthy of effort, to relieve the distress of excessive hunger on the person concerned. But no, that would require a sense of connection with the humanity of a person-a default impulse to try recognizing actually needs and trying to meet them.

That however isn't doesn't appear to be compatible with  the targets of crusades.  Even the more serious ones of history.

Even if medics can't be arsed, they could at least inform their people of this, to do some internet searching themselves. They could let go of policing people into extreme docility and ignorance. They could tell them to be more proactive, that they have nothing and aren't interested in them.

Those who tell people like Brenda to diet or die have little route nor incentive or inclination to try and help or change their ways because there's no come-backs on them. It's all on people like Brenda. She was never given a chance to have a clear sight of her state of being. To get a sense of whether her hunger was or wasn't functioning correctly.

That is why FA. It's about us all, no matter where we fit waking up to these brutal facts. That we will be left to suffer and die in total ignorance of ourselves- if we do not take our humanity and our care into our own hands.

Better for all, thin to fat alike, would be to acknowledge hunger as the generator of eating. If one cannot deal with a physiology overly bent towards storing energy. One can at least switch excessive hunger down-if its present.

A basis of HAES which can be built on with specialist physiotherapy, develop a culture of maintaining/increasing mobility. This of course would immediately humanize "the obese." Which isn't the point of the 'obesity' crusade.