'Obesity' Cult Fatigue?

Michael Buerk's agent provocatoosie act, "Leave couch potatoes alone!" rests on the same diet=weight hypothesis as everyone else, at one time or another. The gist is, fat people die early saving the NHS money, people, let them!

The freedom to make bad choices is what personal autonomy, indeed democracy is all about. Give them the facts to make informed decisions by all means, "nudge" all you like, but in the end - leave the couch potatoes alone. They're weak, not ill. 

If what he said was true, that's pretty much the same position as we have for alcoholics and drug addicts. If they cannot stop drugging or drinking, much easier than a dieting life sentence, their fate is left to how long their bodies can hold out.

This is how body mass has been explained to us all. The diet=weight hypothesis as it was called. The issue is with the lie. If he'd been taught the truth; that body mass is the product of healthy functioning and altering it requires us to find pathways to adjust said function. I daresay he'd have no objections to scientific pursuit of how to achieve this.

But he hasn't.

Now, he's being offered the 'debate' point, he's given his answer-based on what 'obesity' peddlers have told him-that fatz are just bon viveur type self indulgists or even sad sacks clinging to life through living to eat [not eating to live!!!]

This latest episode in the on-going 'obesity' psyche drama is part of white coated professionals campaign to more invasively medicalise body mass, seeking to draw people to their doctor with a view to getting a diet plan from a nutritionist, drugs, injections, and mutilation as a way of saving their obviously failed calorie restriction model. They've realised we're disillusioned with endless repeatition of this failure-even if they aren't, yet wish us to carry on regardless. The only way is to be part of pressing this failure more directly;

Whether the treatment involves diets, drugs, starvation, psychotherapy, self-help groups, exercise programmes, or hormones therapists have been unable to cause many persons to lose weight.

From 1975, but it could be 1875 or even the tenth century.

...the physician shut Sancho up in a room, where he lay on a bed with his feet and hands tied. He only left his captivity to take long walks....To prevent food intake, Hasday ordered that Sancho's mouth be sewn up, with only a small opening being left so that with the aid of a straw he could sip liquids (“Hebrew herbs”), which gave him continuous diarrhea.It appears that Sancho was only fed fluids throughout his stay at Cordova, receiving daily seven infusions combining salt water, orange-flower water, water boiled with vegetables, and fruit. These very probably contained theriac, a drug consisting of a variable number of ingredients, sometimes more than 70, including opium.

How much do you think they wish they could lock us up? To an extent, cutting out your healthy organs replaces the need.

What has happened in response to this jiggery-pokery is something I certainly didn't see coming. Buerk is not simply arguing against their admitted LIE of disease. He's showing distinct and palpable signs of fatigue. Parallel to the kind of fatigue I and other conscious fatz went through which brought us to a desire for acceptance.

In his own way, he's basically accepting fatness, as he's been told it is. The illusion of slim through dietary glory is shattered. Given he's been told, it is science that BMI 30+ is pathology and the only possible way to reverse this is starving and exercise purging, he's vocalised what is the underlying logic of not solving a deadly issue with something that works. Everyone's on board with this non-achieving canard.

Even when I ask the kindest, nicest, cleverest people, "Why don't we just get on and find something that actually works?" Most seem non-plussed, having real trouble grasping my point. As if I suggested pissing on the roses, "Why, what good does that do?"

What does pursuing a proper grasp of how the body actually works along with ways and means to target that which would positively alter its metabolic course? I can but imagine, literally.

His answer to - Let's all LIE;

Doctors are calling it a national emergency and many think that by declaring it a disease, it will reduce the stigma of fatness and encourage people to seek treatment. 

Is;

They're wrong on almost every count. 

He's read the(ir) science on fat genes and read its conclusion, which is physiological differences make nowhere near as much difference as people yearn for. For the record, I'm not a supporter of fat genes. So that's that. He's not making that up, he's reading "obesity science" put out there by those calling him out on their own conclusions.

He's said, nah. Stick with, fatz eat too much and need to do less of that and move more. "Complex factors" just aren't doing it for the likes of Michael Buerk. Well, if you insist on turning biology into a vox populi.

As for me, I'm on the horns of a dilemma. I don't like being pressed into yet another role that isn't me. The role of drunkard without booze, druggist sans drugs. My autonomy is lost to being defined in terms of pathology, without the ability to speak on my own behalf and refute such charges.

The 'obesity' cult exists to shut down and replace my internal subjectivity through a dubious grouping of weight classes. I signed on to be slim, and move on. I did not get what I expected, proper means of achieving that end from professionals who claimed to have such, so no autonomy there either.

I would like that autonomy to be available for anyone who needs or wants to have genuine choice. I doubt people like Buerk will succeed in derailing this wretched farce with their opinings. And note, how the public is following professionals' blather, not the other way around.

But if this reaction could go so far as turning 'obesity' sanctioned interference into a bit of a non-starter, could that clear the way for metabolic function to be placed properly under real scientific inquiry?

It's a long shot, but frankly, if people like Buerk could halt 'obesity' cultists in their tracks leading to them being thrown out of the NHS and government influence, that would be an immense service to those of us watching this repellent charade continue purely on the rank driving it. Sucking up funds like a true dipso.

As long as that cleared the way for starting with the way the body actually works.

Amputation(s)

One of the many things we've been taught during this 'war' against fatsuity is that an amputation is not an amputation if it is in service of trying to make calorie restriction induced weight-loss work. "NHS diabetic foot and toe amputations up 26%, Labour research claims".

Unusual to see modifiers "foot" and "toe" (why the latter isn't included in the former is anyone's guess). It had to though didn't it, because the war on fatsuits is pressing people to amputate their healthy stomachs, but is rather coy on the matter; "Offer weight loss surgery to diabetics"
What is bariatric surgery?

A range of techniques are used, but they are usually all based on the principle of surgically altering the digestive system so it takes less food and makes the patient feel fuller quicker after eating.

Ooh my giddy aunt. If that headline was written in the same fashion-

NHS diabetic foot and toe surgical alterations to bipedal bone structure, to save the patient from dying. 

Making the patient feel fuller quicker after eating and dying. You be the judge on which is and isn't appropriate use of amputation. "Weight loss surgery cuts diabetes risk in very obese", see how they snuck in "very" there? They don't offer it to only very, and verys become too very to be operated on. Best of all though perhaps, that should read;

"Amputation, cuts the risk of amputations". 😆

The National Health Service, which should be relabelled the National Punishment Enforcement Bureau, when it comes to targeted individuals, doesn't want to call amputation in the service of "feeling fuller quicker after eating" amputation. It wants to call it surgical alteration which isn't untrue.....

Incidentally, weight loss surgery/bariatric or treatment for fatsuittery should be called what it is (for), calorie restriction mutilation. It doesn't exist to save you, it exists to (try and) save your ability to starve yourself.

Nothing could express more a purported solution's unsuitability for the human body, than the body requires a "re-design" merely to put it into effect.

Indivisible

The current school of thought droning on about how people have never been so divided tend not to bother with no disagreement but one or other parties insist there is/are.

Ad hominem-literally, to the man or person.

Everybody signed on to slim down or become slimmer under their own steam. Nobody disagreed. The disagreement came when the results of a particularly singular method were deemed biologically (and politically) incorrect.

 This is the major sticking point, not simply quarrelling with biology, but blocking the proper use of biological function.

Currently George Monbiot "We’re in a new age of obesity. How did it happen? You’d be surprised" et al are saying;

.......food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.

Meaning, we have the capacity to strengthen our natural appetite control mechanisms, build up our defences against them being breached, can use psychology to trick ourselves into eating less than we need, and to use the latest neuroscience findings to triumph in leaving our resistance untroubled.

By reversing the effects purportedly achieved by Industrial Food.

The great thing about using the same mechanics to reverse his assertions is this will either uphold them or not. Which is science's usual starting point. Be sure and mention this to your medic or otherwise healthcare professional, sundry fat phobes and such.

Metabolism can be manipulated using non-drug means and Industrial Food knows all about it, according to George Monbiot. Call him.

He also mentions using "subliminal scents" to alter metabolic settings. I myself have said use of light (and probably darkness, separately and in concert) should be tried as a means to alter metabolic function via the eyes, brain and ergo neuro-endocrine glands.

Starvation and drugs are not simply too crude to do this in the right way, they are irrelevant and they poison the body as collateral damage. Plus surgery, is just violent assault. 

Roxane Gay recently reminded us of how far back this rage against the body goes with the case of Sancho I (935-966),

Sancho would....have to travel to Cordova to undergo the slimming treatment; First of all, the physician shut Sancho up in a room, where he lay on a bed with his feet and hands tied. He only left his captivity to take long walks during which he was pulled with ropes by slaves, while leaning on an assistant. When the exercise was over, Sancho was obliged to take endless steam baths.... To prevent food intake, Hasday ordered that Sancho's mouth be sewn up, with only a small opening being left so that with the aid of a straw he could sip liquids (“Hebrew herbs”), which gave him continuous diarrhea. It appears that Sancho was only fed fluids throughout his stay at Cordova, receiving daily seven infusions combining salt water, orange-flower water, water boiled with vegetables, and fruit. These very probably contained theriac, a drug consisting of a variable number of ingredients, sometimes more than 70, including opium. 

Starvation, forced labour and drugs and even some mutilation, albeit reversible, unlike the kind currently being promoted by the likes of Monbiot.

Why do 'obesity' peddlers insist on framing this as a whodunnit? How about they try whogivesafuq?

I saw a photo of myself only a few weeks ago, as a preteen already diet veteran. You would have had trouble picking me out of the photo, on the grounds of body mass. I don't know why slim people never listen to what they project onto us, as if this by definition excludes them, "Normalisation of Plus Size etc.,". If not being able to notice size fattened, Monbiot himself would be a target of his own cultism.

And if dieting had worked, I would never have been one myself. That's how it happened George. I feel like Kano, I lived it.

Cults tend to degenerate into doom laden paranoia. Self correction comes hard to them. Their articles of faith do not engage critical faculties. Round and round and round circling the same themes, tightening all the time, until there's a massive shoot out with the FBI or some such.

Sorry old bean, some of us got off that merry-go-round a long time ago.

Ministering to Bodies does not Equal Ownership of People

A few weeks ago a certain health authority announced that it will breathalyse smokers to make sure they've stopped smoking for 8 weeks before they can be referred for assessment for "non-urgent surgery".

They said the changes were being brought in after 85% of people who responded to a public consultation agreed that smokers should be required to quit before being referred. 

This transparent attempt at buck passing shows the architects of this know they are in the wrong, they don't want to own it. Instead they try to stick it on the usual targets, the public.

Smoking is a habit. It is not addictive, it's is not even particularly faddictive-folks still woefully underestimate the power of the human mind in real life.

Smoking has never been more self-selecting than it is today, so if anyone wants to truly make further inroads into the numbers remaining, they need to come up with techniques that actually work for those who smoke and resist urges to indulge in power games expressions punitive fee fees or crackpot vigilante justice.

To use that brilliant-as-it-is-skewif expression, check the optics: anti-smoking professionals targeting people for; reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette, by reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics.

If phoned in anti-ism equalled expertise in the formation and cessation of habits, that wouldn't have happened now would it?

If health professionals and bureaucrats wish to truly engage in public health, they need to engage with healthy behaviours to bring about that end. They can do their; "Bad for you, bad for you act, in an emergency, in the initial stages of any real or perceived health crisis- if they've not thought of anything better. After the initial loosely aligned are shaken off though, they'd better put some effort into how to actually alter what compelling about what they're complaining about.

With real demonstrations of efficacy, that can be repeated, not assertion or pseudo-science statistically massaged 'studies', or other so called "evidence-based" hocus-poci. No stupid chewing gum or horrible-as-they-are ineffectual drugs "support" either. If you are criticising using material things, why is that all you've got? If you think the answer to problems is things, what are you looking down your nose at?

Why aren't you more concerned about how to alter the behaviour and performance of your mind/body, using your mind/body? That is a real anti-thesis of habitual consumption of material objects.

If that sounds like a tall order, that's the sort of feeling you invoke in your targets.

In the past Public health was honourable and progressive. It improved society and was led by knowledge such as an understanding of the true value of hygiene and of the nature and transmission of disease.

Public health must again be about raising the health of the populace, not a pretext to assaulting mental health, inducing self hatred, creating social/moral hierarchies, or a cover for weird politics/ morality social engineering and the vaunting of one's own personal hatreds. 

Incidentally, no cure-all but smokers or trying to be ex-smokers should consider making a practise of yogic style or other breathing exercises. Even that famous warm up stretch where you take deep breaths as you raise your arms from your sides into the air- really open your chest [it's famous but I can't find a link.] And when you lower your arms whilst exhaling, really empty your lungs-without strain- and pause before taking another breath.

This won't suit everyone but it's worth a try. If your body knows its going to get some invigorating breaths, that might weaken that aspect of the attraction of fags, just don't bring that to smoking!

I can hardly finish without mentioning;

The CCGs also require obese patients to reduce their weight by 10% over nine months or reduce their BMI (body mass index) to less than 30, whichever is greater, before being referred for non-urgent surgery.

Again, whomever wrote; "reduce their weight" knows the only means made available for that-CRIWL is harmful and doesn't work. Euphemise away, you are not even fooling yourselves. Effectively this is seeking to force people to starve off weight against their will. It's seeking to mandate the ceaseless repetition of self harm and self abuse.  

Let's refresh on medical ethics;

• Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
• Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
• Non-maleficence – to not be the cause of harm. Also, "Utility" - to promote more good than harm
• Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality). (Iustitia.)

That's a fail on all four and more.

Fat people have taken the initiative, we have done the dieting, that's how we know the results are not satisfactory to anyone.

Patronising nonsense about how people need 'support' to impersonate anorexia, be damned, this is a medical dispute.

There's an obvious vacancy here for science that seeks only to properly understand and manipulate metabolic function. That doesn't concentrate on pointless categorising of people by weight as if being above or below their arbitrary lines makes your bodily functions unrelated to each other.

Look at what that has produced. 

If medical professionals et al want to continue their blocking of real science that actually works, and promotion of pseudo-science that doesn't, they need to explain their motivation for this. They need to become accountable for the outcome.

Either way, doctors don't own fat or any other people. They can't tell us black is white and white is black or try to press us to support their science fiction.

I repeat, fat people have always wanted to slim, we have been prevented by the lack of proper method. Medics et al can only continue to bypass that for so long.

"Obesity scientists" as others choose the area of knowledge they wish to pursue, which is their right. That doesn't co-incide with the needs of those they treat as their personal quarry. No-one signed up to be their puppets, we signed on for altering weight/metabolic function in good faith. That has not been provided and is not on offer so that is that.

Neither they nor medics nor society is owed anything by fat people. We've done what we can with what we've been given.

Nor for the record, is mutilation of the stomach any more a viable option than smoking yourself slim.

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.

Ballooney

Swallowing an inflatable device to take up room in your stomach so you can starve more easily, really? And the outcome of that would be different from just starving on your own, how?

At the end of the 16 weeks, the patients were encouraged to eat a Mediterranean diet to try to maintain their weight loss.

Maintain starvation, with what technique, procedure, process, stimulus? What modus, what pathway, what model? A placebo is defined by no active effect. This is all no active effect, just the acting out of how someone thinks metabolic function ought to work, but does not. And because they can't let go, we aren't allowed to.

No one really talks about how devastating it can be to regain weight loss so achingly slowly and punitively. It is literally Sisyphean;

In Greek legend Sisyphus was punished in Hades for his misdeeds in life by being condemned eternally to roll a heavy stone up a hill. As he neared the top, the stone rolled down again, so that his labour was everlasting and futile.

People know this though don't they? That's the whole point of it these days....punishment for sin.

Well Meaning Fat People

To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.~ Charles Darwin

Why do so many ignorant ideologues feel at such liberty to relentlessly question the practice, ethics and intelligence of fat people?

Let's reiterate, calories in/out, a lifestyle of proto-anorexia plus its bastard child the 'obesity' cult has an unprecedented hold over everyone's psyche. It still does. It's meant feminists advocating against bodily autonomy for women-if they're fat. Excoriating against advocates of the death penalty, advocate the death penalty for fat people. Anti-racists who tell Black people they should accept mal-treatment on the grounds of weight, they would fight on the grounds of race. People against anorexia think it "healthy" to tell a child their social problems will be solved if they control their food intake and train like an athlete.

Those who insist communism is evil, insist all people need the same diet of tasteless pap and the same amount of calories, the grip is total.  

Despite the ci/co junkyard trashing all belief systems, ethics, professionalism before it, its failed utterly to achieve its own purported ends. Despite or perhaps because of this, its mentally dependent fanatical hagiographers remain hopelessly entranced by it. Which would be fine, if they weren't in positions to impose it on those who know better from bitter years of experience. Lived experience they delete at every turn.

So desperate are these wretched cranks, that they've been forced to concede the obvious, that dieting as a weight reversal strategy is a bust. Buuuut that's only because you give up too soon. Leaving aside that this (typically) makes no sense. What's too soon?

That's pretty much open-ended.

What other strategy would be given an indefinite amount of time to prove itself? Let's take the 7 years proposed here. At work, what task would you be expected to be given such time to complete? Complete a company report? Turn around a department into profit/productivity? How about a district, or establish your own business?

What about prime minister or president being given 7 year terms of office? How long would you stick with something before you declared it a fail? If you had a headache for 7 years, would you keep taking the same pill for it which didn't work? What if it came in different packaging and had different designs? After all, a headache is far more bearable than forcing yourself to block hunger, do activities, eat a diet dictated by someone else.

Maybe you'd give a destructive marriage 7 years, indeed advocates for sticking with proto-anorexia are similar to advocates for sticking with all marriage-I'll bet that's where that stupid phrase came from. It doesn't matter that you're being treated like shit, marriage is sacred, no divorce.

Funny thing is these fanatics are well able to acknowledge and assert the concept of failure when it suits them;

.......attempts to manipulate what we find beautiful have been crashingly unsuccessful. The Adipositivity Project – which uses artful photographs of morbidly obese half-naked models to reframe fatness as a thing of beauty – remains separatist and marginalised.

Seeing as Substantia Jones's project was to photograph fat people artfully, I'd say she's succeeded in that 100%. But even if we take on the internal projection of a fat phobe that she's aiming to do what they do-manipulate taste. We can clearly see SJ has been declared a flop after what 5 years or so? And given her "failure" is "crashing" we are to infer that she'd have been expected to have succeeded long before that.

The truth about failure is, it's embarrassing. One of the things that makes a person stop doing what doesn't work is to recover their dignity. It's seen as admirable to learn from failure by seeking not to repeat it. When we aren't allowed to act on our good sense, we are turned into the village idiot, repeating failure as if we can't predict or accept that its happening.

Repeating failure and the insult to one's intelligence is what goes into fat people developing a tremendous burden of shame. That others feel no compunction about pressing us into this shows there's little care about the impact of this on us. It shows our co-operation with the process has brought us no grace, but only contempt. Because only people who are really craven and abject would subject themselves to this continual assault.

The truth is, whilst fat people keep dieting like it works, we'll never gain the respect of those telling us to do it.

The higher the expectation of success, the higher the cringe factor. Telling us now that we should take this continual failure in our stride is bunkum, that was discovered by dieters. It's only available as 'advice' because they contradicted the flow.

Being launched into a diet with shame, hate via assaults on your body, morals, health and integrity, is hardly conducive to not taking it to heart. You're doing it to relieve that burden, not for something to do. It's imperative that you escape the trap you've been placed in.

Taking this with pinch of salt would require the acknowledgement that this method is and always was crap. That it should not be expected to succeed, like a high odds bet.

No sign of that though, instead we're told its fat people's lack of stocism/endeavour. We want the "easy way out" oh really?

A cursory look around the fatsphere alone shows people have developed all manner of eating disorders, lost organs, been hospitalized and been taken to the edge of our sanity following these particular set of weight loss dictates. I was lost in this tunnel for while, 17 straight years dedicated to this worthless and sinister ideology. I unwittingly short changed people who genuinely care about me, in pursuit of what, apart from my own undoing?

And what prey is the easy way out? Taking a pill for back or any other ache, when you mis use your back with abandon, stand like a puppet held up by sagging strings? How about pills to calm down, to avoid finding out why you're so miserable in the head you helped to build and such?

For the easy way out read efficiency, effectiveness. 

I remember hearing about a potent variety of a plant discovered growing in China. It was prized for its ability to treat and cure a murderous tropical disease. Though varieties grew elsewhere, this one created excitement because though other varieties worked, they were so slow acting that barely anyone could manage to keep taking it for long enough.

That was for a deadly disease. Death was not sufficient "motivation" to stick with it.

This was accepted because this normal behaviour, such that can be observed the world over. Realizing few can manage to take the 'cure' is a completely rational assessment of the efficacy of a remedy. That despite working, it in the end didn't, because it fell down on impliementation.

Dieting's a pathology. It's so far away from being close to as good as the defunct variety of that plant that it sounds like a joke. It has little potency in the first place. It cannot be tolerated by any system that reacts to it normally ,i.e fights the heck out of it.

That this risible and failed pathology still has such overweening currency is a tribute to the power and influence of the medical profession and the absolute chokehold ci/co ideology has got over the human psyche.

One of the things that disgusts me the most is the raving ahistoricism such extent of denial and delusion brings about. Supporters of "weight management" deny what fat people have done-what what we know we've done.

This is undoubtedly abusive. It's gaslighting maximus. Only people in relationships with possessive and controlling partners/relatives etc., have similar experience of such relentless suppression of their lived experience in order to control and direct their behaviour.

No one should have to put up with this, certainly not in conjunction with "improving health." Denying our actual efforts worst still, inserting false reasoning and narratives put a huge pressure of dissonance on fat people. I'm sick and tired of the fakeness we're expected to substitute for real experience that continues to go unheard.

I was never really able to face my ED squarely because that felt like I was copping out of my weight loss dieting campaign. That I was demotivating myself by letting myself off the hook. More than that, I didn't feel able to say what was actually happening. That I got no pleasure from being run ragged by overweening appetite and hunger.

How can any fat person not enjoy eating? How can a fat person who is a "glutton," not be driven by pleasure? I didn't feel able to say these things as they ran so counter to the narratives pressed on us. I felt like a liar when I faced the truth.

If anyone feels the urge to say I was "hurting/punishing myself with food" kindly suppress such fake arsed drivel.

When you are on your uppers physically and/or mentally, you shouldn't have to expend precious energy care-taking other people's delusional projected narratives. You should not be stymied at every turn by a culture of false information and slander, especially when you have only yourself to rely on precisely because of this distraction.

It turned out that this lack of enjoyment was a sign of other ingrained problems which needed to be dealt with, to some extent before I could unpick my ED. Indeed, the unpicking of the former turned out to be part of doing the same for the latter.  If I had known this, it would have changed everything and saved a hell of a lot of years. 

Fat people are never deemed well meaning are we? Never. Despite sticking with something no one else would put up with for so many years, often whilst deriding and underplaying our own efforts. Marginalized fatter people recognised that aspects of diet and exercise worked for them. So instead of being purely discouraged by lack of slimness, they turned this and other things to their advantage and used them to maintain and increase their function. They created HAES, also deemed ready for the bin, by Dr(s) Diet-Cannot-Fail and his ilk.

I spent years frustrated and failing, unwittingly deepening more than one eating disorder, yet at the same time, I learned to look at other avenues to increase my well-being. Avenues that ended up saving me from several neuroses endgames, eventually enabling me to reverse the numerous problems I either created or advanced following orders.

The people giving the orders were of absolutely no use for recovering from the numerous problems their intransigence leaves in other people.

Yet still we can be presented as always fucking up, so says a bunch of dozy self absorbed arseholes who cannot face up to themselves and are certainly in no position to judge us.

They can also do with stopping their "It takes years to get fat" too. It takes whatever nanosecond it takes for whatever takes weight upward to acquire its animating spark. Time just allows that exegesis to unfold.

It should take no time whatever to reverse that similarly if the correct means was found. Refuting obvious failure is a time wasting tactic bent on postponing the inevitable reckoning. The one they're dodging with all their might. Remember, all this means even those who's fatness they cannot condemn as "self inflicted" get done over the same, if not worse than a common or garden fat person, by this indulgence.

Never forget, because they do.

No Death Penalty for Being Fat

No sooner did I write about the spectacle of a fat person losing weight, serving as inspo-porn for shamelessly empty-headed, does more construct-related grotesequerie rear its maggoty head.

diet or die

How about neither? Though one of them is guaranteed at some point or another, presenting them as two options together like that, I say no thanks to imposture. Even taking account of the sewer dwelling standards of 'obesity' bollocks, surely, surely this kind of taunting goes too far?

Apparently not. Its like an Invasion of the Brain Snatchers, sleep walking sickness. When it comes to 'obesity' the lights are on but people are switched off.

Nor is this any kind of warning. It's a direct threat. And to some, a promise. 

Again, I must point to this suppurating enigma at the heart of the crusade. Why insist weight must "prevented"/maintained or shifted via calorie manipulation rather than reversal/advance of the process (or processes) that led the body to attaining its size?

Why this route and this route alone?

What's so special, so sacred about it? The only other thing there must only be one thing of is god. Are you looking for a god bothering placeholder to believe in? Do you need a sense of certainty you feel is missing in your life? Do you want to return to a golden age of about 30 years ago? Or do you feel the need to unite with your fellow man on something you can all agree on? Why don't you buy something or get a real religion?

Fat people aren't yours. We aren't like a real life puppet show you can feel the frisson of excitement of staring into our eyes to see your handiwork register. We aren't your project.

There are reams and reams of every known product or service in an economy of any sophistication. Virtual duplication where things of the same kind differ barely, if at all. Anything to express choice even when its somewhat illusory. That's advertised as the shining path desire expresses itself through.

Can't find what you "want" because of the absence of some microscopic must-have?

Someone with a commercial interest will run around arms flapping like that really matters. Summon the best minds available on it. Inevitably someone comes up with something.... 

But the notion, that maybe there could possibly be another way of altering body composition and that is sacrilege. Entitled, spoilt, just for once, take responsibility, one strike and you're out.

You can see the displacement.

Because this of all places is really the place to draw the line. Whilst you put pressure on people to save you, healthcare, the earth, whatever. Consumer society is really tussling with it's own excesses. It just doesn't want to face that. Doesn't want the party to stop. That surfaces where no social graces are extended though. And so will remain until people face their own feelings about their own behaviour.

Like millions of others, I dieted, not because it made sense for most of the time I was doing it. I restricted because it was the only option to fulfill my stubborn aim. If I'd had an actual way, a better option or options I would have used those instead. Dieting only exists because there's nothing else and nothing coming. It is so shit that it needs to be the only game in town.

But the imposition of it being the only way has grown around the need many have for the idea of one way or the highway. Not the other way around.

It's not just that proto-anorexia is the seen as the way, the truth and the light, the saviour of all mankind, if not civilization as we know it. It's that its patiently such a useless, ugly mess. Everyone dreads and detests it. Contrary to the slimming related psycho-drivel, that's physiologically, not psychologically based.

Yes, I do know that mind is brain and brain is just a body part. I'm saying directly that this worldwide aversion is not a mental decision, it is the body's reaction sent to the mind to then be voiced.

In fact, our conscious minds seem rather susceptible to the merest suggestion of dietary restriction. Fasting, notions of clean eating, cleansing anorexia etc.,  is actually rather attractive to our minds.

Thin people are able to be the most vocal about this visceral disdain for obvious reasons. The centrality of energy to our existence makes our bodies recoil from being cut off from what sustains existence, for no good reason. 

Yet this is the way decided upon, no matter the upheaval, the invasiveness, the wastefulness, the,  jealousy, resentment, hate, disorder, the collateral damage and the continued failure this generates.

I'd be lying if I said I cared overly right this minute. All I know is this makes it clear that "losing weight" isn't the object.  It's about, this, the way it is now and keeping it that way for as long as possible.

This mess in and of itself is fulfilling a function to those invested in it. 

That's freakish and truly embarrassing so, the same old excuses come thick (yes) and fast. 

It's about morality, personal responsibility. Why then wouldn't say the medical profession object to treating genocidal dictators, serial killers, child molesters first? People can be cynical about lawyers, but they regularly air the possibility of successfully defending the potentially guilty and convicting the potentially innocent.

Imagine the potential qualms about saving the health, the life of someone who has or would go on to kill or use that health to hurt and damage others?

D'you not think they might start with them before they got to mere fatness? What better way to impose a non-judicial death penalty than by letting them die from whatever bodily process medics can leave to just keep going where it may.

Oh what's the matter, is that barbaric? Are you against capital punishment? But its just capital for fat people isn't it?

One of the women in the above links, Jennifer Bodek had a brother die when she was 15, followed her mother at 18. Do people need to die because of what may be have been triggered by grief? And no, that's not a cue to turn hate into pity.

And what about weight that's been triggered partly or wholly by crimes committed against their bodies? They are to be ultimately accountable in a way those who committed crimes against them will not? Is that the morality being referred to?

Then there's the towering: "Fat people are ugly."

Have you seen disease in action? Plagues, pustulence, body disrupting bacteria? It's not pretty. The subtle: "Fat people smell." Medical professionals examine folks piss and shit, tend to suppurating wounds, pus filled lumps, encounter necrotic stench. 

Never remotely convincing. A lazy pisspoor effort all round. You get an F.....for fail.

Nor is it the case that there are no leads. It doesn't surprise me that adjusting something like insulin levels can not only undermine excess hunger triggering, but can also increase the body's use of energy.

You know they can block the onset of precious puberty?

How can that be oh so much harder than at the very least stalling adipogenesis for those people who are just relentlessly and aggressively gaining? Is fatty tissue acquisition really more complex than changing shape, internal organs, gaining actual parts and features you didn't have before and so forth?

Intractable depression is a metabolic problem, so being able to adjust it has the potential to be a treatment pathway for various neurosis as well as heart disease which is connected to depression and anxiety disorders. And no, not because depression makes you lazy.

My guess is that if your depression seriously abates due to diet and exercise, you didn't have it. It's effectively self diagnosed in the main. 

Even anorexia, in my view, should be reversed rather than making anorexics impersonate hyperphagia, that in its way is a cruel and unnecessary shock to their state of mind. Forcing them to be the battleground for their neurosis and their will.

And the two are intertwined, reversal and advance of weight have the same basis. Denial of alternatives to reversing weight has meant the death penalty for other than fat people.

And what about that? Wasn't support for it supposed to be unspeakably primitive and bigoted? I always wondered whether support for that-once unashamedly rock solid- ebbed through shaming or the progress of rational argument-which are what again? It's wrong for the state to kill etc.,

It's odd to see so many of those quick to issue a death penalty for being fat, are the same vociferous shamers of anyone supporting it for the most heinous of crimes. I can understand not recognising the form of something in another context, we all have that in some way or another-but with something so supposedly heartfelt, you'd think some part of the mind would recognize this intellectual faux pas.

Begs the question, does there always have to be something a person can do-or in this case be-that means they deserve to forfeit their life? And if that isn't the most unspeakable things, does that impulse inevitably drift elsewhere? In this case, merely an unpoliced area? Literally, fatness has become a criminal justice issue, without either criminality or justice. 

Some kind of thwarted urge to punish the guilty is at work here. Yet it is those same minds that felt the urge to stymie that in the first place.What gives"anti-death penalty" advocates? Did you know your deep ethic beliefs were shallow and that really, you're just a person who believes what's fashionable amongst your class?

That you're really moved according to what is and isn't shameful to those of your class who can really think (or dominate). Do you truly believe in anything at all? Do any of us? Or is it a particular state of being?

No more do evil acts decide the imposition of the ultimate penalty, but merely what's unguarded. And you wonder why people often default to the on the defensive even when they're in the wrong? Who can blame them? When a simple and consistent mea culpa can bring you the most capital of punishments?

I cannot support the DP, apart from directly, there's the inevitable race/class bias. Even I though I have had cause to wonder whether my objection is based ultimately on morality or squeamishness.

But if I was to change my mind, it would not be mere slimness that inspired a change, that's for sure.

No death penalty for being fat.

*Terri Smith

Perfectionism

Aim for the moon and you get to the stars. Perfectionism is when you're disappointed with those twinklers because, they're not the moon!!

The belief that perfection is a real possibility rather than something to aim for, is a hard task master. It means the likelihood of spending most of your life in a state of ever burgeoning disatisfaction. Until you crash in some way. You probably will.

Unless you think you're perfect, then you'll just be a pain to everyone else.

Perfectionism is the underpinning to many mental health crises, neuroses mainly. It often becomes depressing, as it is exhausting to the nervous system. Many people in this state of mind feel they have low self esteem. Not necessarily.

Our default is self esteem, we tend to notice if that's being undermined, by falling short of impossible standards.

Preliminary Ruling on Disability

The preliminary finding from the Karsten Kaltoft case is that "severe obesity" a BMI of 40 + can count as a disability. It's from the advocate general and isn't binding, though its usually a formality that the European Court of Justice will follow.

What can I say?

I do not agree with seeing weight, any weight as a uniform disability. Nor indeed did the plaintiff. It makes better sense to follow the norm which is to recognize disability as it occurs and not to invent it. But, since when did sense lead this crusade?

The advocate general, Niilo Jaaskinen, who advises the court, found that EU law did not prohibit discrimination specifically on the grounds of obesity,

And there you have it. If folks wound up by their own hysteria can no longer view fat people in a rational objective manner and we know they cannot. Who should pay the price?  Fat people or those indulging their unrestrained overexcitement?

The court has found that it should be as per usual, polluter pays.

On the other side, it could lead to a greater sensitivity in terms of providing adequate furniture and fixtures to accommodate larger bodies without fuss. I find the parking obsession comical, but was intrigued that it might mean employers have to provide healthy options!

Some warn it could make fat people less employable. I hope not. 

And;

Jaaskinen threw out the notion that a self-inflicted disability could be any less worthy of protection, saying: "The origin of the disability is irrelevant. [It] does not depend on whether the applicant has contributed causally to the acquisition of his disability through 'self-inflicted' excessive energy intake."

Pass me a hankie to dry my tears of laughter.  That's what can happen when grotesquely indulged delusion crashes into an arena where it cannot hold sway-for once and is subject to arch rationalists.

The Real Fat Police

Just a quick mention of this story of a couple who've been detained by police under "suspicion of neglect and child cruelty."

Their son's 11 years old, weighs 15 stones/ 210lbs/ 95.2 kg and has a BMI of 41.9. Now, I do not know whether there is more to this story than meets the eye. He's already known to social services, apparently for this same reason.

If this is case is prima facie then it exposes yet again the cost of 'obesity' lies and who's actually paying for them. Framing weight as fully under the control of the parents is a dirty trick unworthy of a profession people trust with their lives. It leaves people guilty as charged and under pressure.

The problem seems to be no weight los/ceasing of weight gains. But that should have been the duty of "obesity medicine" [sic]. It hasn't bothered so cannot promise. It's failed to formulate that as a worthwhile goal and tackle it, too busy indulging its slimmer of the year level yearnings. 

It's almost beyond comprehension that anyone could turn metabolic function into a legal tussle, the incompetence is mind-boggling. Especially when you consider the lengths social services can go to keep children with those committing all sorts of genuine damage to their children, in the name of keeping families together.

If you're wondering how the parents ended up in custody, they went voluntarily. I wonder if that's why genuine abuse is harder to stop, lack of co-operation from the parents. This level of aggression towards fatness is out of control and shows the spread of the 'obesity' echo chamber in certain quarters. I also suspect that its an easy target. There's an element of show.

I hope someone gets sued. I'm wondering whether this impinges on article 8.

Whilst it may be possible to check weight in some way through the imposition of diets and exercise on children. It should never have been relied on to the expense of any other possible approaches. Nor should any pretense that it can be taken for granted be a basis of judgement. If that was the case,  'obesity medicine' would routinely be managing it and this detaining would be unnecessary.

It's this policy of at the exclusion of all else, plus the punitive atmosphere that has led here, not the parents ability. If this had been done with other areas of well-being and health, the jails would be full of parents. There's barely one parent who can claim confidently not to have one area that could be seen as not living up to the high standards of social services.

Feeding your children is not and never has been an exact science and no one should expect it to become so just because capricious authority deems it the route it flex its might.

There should be a system in place to help weight outliers such as this boy achieve his full potential. Something like an out patient clinic, where there's access to physio, as well as nutritional advice. A check on his emotional state, helping him manage it if necessary to help keep him mentally robust. He needs to be in this atmosphere.

If he feels bad about himself or is being teased a lot, then that may add a significant problem, whether he has an issue with his hunger/appetite or not.

From what his parents seem to have said, they're positive and accepting of him and they should be congratulated for that. It's not easy to resist such a fat phobic surround.

“Any action taken by any agency will be subject to a joint strategy between all partner agencies and will always be taken with the welfare of the child and their protection from harm as paramount.

If that was in any way the case, the crusade you are involving yourself in, would not have had setting people up to fail as its main concern. The welfare of children has stopped none of this. Indeed, one of the main reasons why I never thought things would get anywhere near this bad, is that people wouldn't want to hurt children.

How wrong was that?!

And bracketing fatness thus;

A force spokesman said officers from the child abuse investigation unit worked closely with health and social services to deal with “sensitive issues such as obesity and neglect of a child.

Has gone beyond reason.