Denial of Service

"I was denied NHS treatment because my BMI was too high", note there's no term such as "deemed" in between "was" and "too".One of the cases featured in this article is a woman who had gallstones, gallstones. When I hear that term I think, pain. Everyone who's ever told me of their experience of them has emphasised usually right off the bat that they are excruciatingly, painful.

I didn't even know it was possible to have painless ones [it is],

Gallstones don't usually cause any symptoms. But if a gallstone blocks one of the bile ducts, it can cause sudden, severe abdominal pain, known as biliary colic.

This woman was told she couldn't be referred to hospital for further treatment on the grounds of weight.

On one occasion it went on for more than 10 hours," she says. "I was exhausted, but in too much pain to sleep, scared to move in case it made it worse, but wanting to move in order to try and find some relief."

After nine months of this, albeit, intermittently. 

We're reluctant to call this what it is, a refusal of treatment. Doctors are effectively drawing the line at weight. I don't care to get itty-bitty on this. If people think, demanding people diet, is not refusing treatment, then they clearly have no grasp of what being refused treatment means. In all humility, I can do nothing for them.

Personally, as I keep saying, I have no problem with doctors refusing treatment, but unlike others I see this as a two-way negotiation. I want what I feel is needed to make this work for me not the professionals, and that is the tools I need to make a go of actual self-management, plus provision of medical expertise that excludes any 'obesity' or "lifestyle" nonsense.

The standard treatment for gallstones is gallbladder removal – or cholecystectomy – but Karen was told she couldn't be put on the waiting list for surgery until after she'd lost weight and her BMI was below 30. Instead, she was advised to manage her symptoms by eating an extremely low-fat diet – which, she adds, did at least help her to lose weight quickly [choosing from scientifically researched methods and techniques that use her conscious mind to alter her body's function.]

I'm giving you a sense of what is required here. I have no objection whatsoever to managing myself, I've been trying to do it since I was about seven years old. What I have learnt in all that time is self management isn't shit, without tools that actually do what you require. That demands real knowledge, not made up crud like 'obese'.

Obviously, those fat people who are-sick of being their own doctors-can stick with this and fight against "medical fatphobia", fuqdat. I'd just as soon have use of more of my body's own abilities, if you don't mind.

Academic Standards

Again, it's the remarkable hegemony. People of all political persuasions (un)thinking the same way, saying, the same idiot thing.

"Anti-Science". Keep your eye on what that's supposed to be referring to. Quoting from the linked post,

Acknowledge the University of Washington campus is on land stolen from Native Americans. Use gender-neutral, culturally diverse names in examples. Stop believing being overweight is unhealthy.

Then,

I understand how you can acknowledge and use. But I very sincerely don’t understand how you can stop believing. 

I of course, sincerely believe in that sincerity.

I can't always be of service, so I tentatively offer a reversal the advice of Journey-Do stop believin'......let go of that feeling, no-wha-o....

Then,

I especially don’t understand how you can stop believing something that’s demonstrably true on orders from your employer.

If it is demonstrably true, why does it require belief? Belief is assertion in the absence of evidence or conclusive proof otherwise. If you don't believe in what is true, then you are the same as those who peddle 'obesity' cultism who do not believe inducing weight loss using calorie restriction has failed, even though their complaining, nagging and crisis-mongering is premised on that very failure.

Success would have stopped the crusade for 'obesity' from getting this far and would end it now.

I still remember being proud of supporting the party of science and facts. And now we are all about bullying people into believing ridiculous, unscientific crap. It’s embarrassing.

Umm, I don't know about proud. I have never thought of science as partisan or identitarian, science is just science, it can unhand anyone at any time. That's why we cannot vaingloriously think we are on its "side", it can pull the rug from those trying to pal up to it, just as well as those trying to fight it. Which we probably all are in some way or t'other.

People fighting it is often about identity, but, science itself, isn't, or shouldn't be one.

We're still looking for the precise application of 'anti-science'. So let's try the link itself; "Profs at UW Seattle Asked to Push Progressive Causes in School’s Diversity Guide",

...the administration seems willing to placate a group of hypersensitive, progressive activist-students and faculty seeking to purge opposing political viewpoints from campus

'Kay, so we're also looking for, "hypersensitive", "progressive" and evidence of "purging opposing political viewpoints". Remembering that, manipulating body mass is an issue of physiology, not politics nor belief.

It says emphasis on diversity is the promotion of progressive politics, whilst I would not want to present myself as the progressive-whisperer, diversity seems to me to be an endeavour that easily lends itself to plus ca change, or appearing to change whilst staying the same through, in this case, window-dressing.

File under- evidence for assertion-inconclusive, to put it mildly.

But then it gets legitimate crazy. Writing for Quillette, Reges broke down one recommendation:

Can't wait, few things are more tantalising than the prospect of finding out what people think of as cray.

Review of all course materials for inclusiveness. For instance, of a lecture that involves calculating body mass index (BMI) using guidelines from the National Institutes of Health, the report noted that it ‘seems insensitive to present students with a program that would point out that some of them are ‘obese’ while others are ‘normal.’

Incidentally, I like that detail of "..using guidelines from the National Institutes of Health,". Still pocket billiards.

Recap; anti-science, demonstrably true, hypersensitive, progressive, [indicative of] purging opposing viewpoints, refers to not the questioning of why the true nature of metabolic function has entered the status of belief system, political viewpoint, but suggesting that vested interests' insertion of sci-fi should not be jettisoned, but merely stop short of seeking to divide students into its irrelevant categorisation.

These three things mentioned as a trio; the genocidal dispossession of indigenous people, widening the references in illustrative examples and whether to hold off on yet more divisive categorisation of students, have nothing to do with each other.

I'm sure all concerned know this. Such is the desire to keep people in the same place as themselves, that, the words don't matter, they're just there to carry the tune.

Suffice it to say, I don't care who you are, what or who's "side" you are on or think you're on, what you stand for, what you think you stand for, who you are, or think you are, your rank, sex, class or race....

On this, if you continue to allow yourself to be used as a bot to police obedience in others, whilst not engaging the most primitive of your critical faculties, on your own, without being told by those puppeteering you, with your big boy-girl panties on, you're going to have to take an "L".

No matter how safe and secure you feel right now.

Sinking

Just a quick note for slimz and those who love them😆. You are sinking......

Up until recently, slimz routinely maintained that attitude to nourishment that probably comes in the womb. You know young children just eat, in accord with their own needs, tastes and preferences? They'll leave anything. Doesn't matter what their society or culture prizes, they'll bypass it or barely trouble it, if they don't need to. 

The basic difference between fat and slim is the latter retained more of this aura of freshness, confidence and eating (or response) clarity. Obviously, it was a case of it being less interrupted by the demands of anorexia-by-proxy et al. My firm feeling is this is more than just a feeling. I think it goes down to a biochemical level. Something comes with it, a kind of protection from the vagaries of having your dieting invasively managed by others, but also as much a potential threat to your nutrition as any dieting mayhem "Gym, eat, repeat: The shocking rise of muscle dysmorphia."

I suspect it is part of your metabolic function. I don't know if we can get it back. I used my slim friends as a marker, post orthorexically induced hyperhunger. That wouldn't be possible now. Whenever you talk to slim people about food you're deluged by the tedium of nutri-bollox, ugh.

What effect this will have on the bodies and minds of slim people, is anyone's guess. I've little doubt we'll find out and it may well identify another part of the puzzle of what the 'obesity' mess does to a person.

The Harassment of Fat People

For some reason, I've only just caught up with this,

How you can hear that fat people are subjected to constant abuse/harassment/job discrimination and extreme medical negligence... and argue that it doesn’t qualify as pernicious enough to be compared to other serious forms of discrimination, shows your inherent anti-fatness.

— Jameela Jamil 🌈 (@jameelajamil) April 18, 2019

The situation fat people find themselves in isn't good, but the issue is not comparison, its what is going on and who and what is behind it.

The main trouble starts with the insistence, from doctors, research and other health care professionals that everyone who is above a certain body mass index 25+ or 30+ dubbed 'obese' must engage in bringing about weight loss through a restricted intake of food, along with exercise to purge energy.

I know people want to make it more important than this. It probably should be. That it isn't is somewhat testament to how certain stratas of society indulge each other.

The body will not comply with this request to shed mass on the demand of calorie restriction, though people most certainly have complied with trying it, extensively over numerous decades. The body is designed to maintain an adequate energy supply. Attempting to short this, doesn't disturb it from its course which is to thwart anything that will upset maintaining the energy it needs. It's simply the wrong way to achieve this purported end.

For some reason, the white coated ones refuse point blank to accept this reality. Rather than follow the old dictum of; "If the hypothesis doesn't match reality, change the hypothesis", they've preferred to have a go at changing reality, rather than their obviously defunct hypothesis. 

So where does the energy of insisting people must do something, in a way that doesn't work, go to? In this case, seeking to press them into a cycle of compulsive repetition. The method used to press people into doing this to their unwilling bodies, is peer pressure. Using it to make being whilst fat, so unpleasant that people seek to flee it, regardless of the cost.

This is most of what people are framing as social injustice. It's ubiquity serves as evidence of "oppression". 

Most of this doesn't really make sense, reality will not yield to this. During the learning process, it maybe necessary to suspend what you know in order to grasp an idea. When you've grasped it, you can return to a normal state of engaging critically with the subject.

With 'obesity' the first part has happened, but not the second. This crusade's propaganda cannot stand up to minimal scrutiny and is not subject to it. Instead all the criticism is laid at the door of fat people who are expected to answer for other people's refusal to stop other people's exercise of power. People are usually uncritical of what is said to them under the aegis of 'obesity' and that needs to stop. Engage your normal standard of critical evaluation.

When you are told' obesity is epidemic, ask yourself, who or what has failed? Why do professionals keep promoting the same thing as if it works, whilst effectively complaining about its failure and pointing fingers elsewhere?

Recognise the failure of dieting to make people slim.You don't have to "believe" fat people, slim people are dieting, they're not getting lighter overall, either.  You all know the truth, stop colluding in the denial of it. That is cruel, people can't get closure on what was a substantive and sustained effort. Think of them for once.

This is most of the harassment of fat people. Though people can pick on differences between each other; weight, height, hairiness/hairlessness being some traits people pick on. Ultimately, the aggression and nastiness comes from the legitimisation of the white coated ones.

People aren't harassing us because they've been told we're lazy-they give that reason-they've been told to disturb us, to permanently knock us off our stride, so that we'll be desperate enough to keep trying to repeat failure. Which is presented as "getting healthy" and the like.

Weight is being used to introduce the notion of fault as a factor in health and treatment which it isn't, or wasn't. That's a particular mindset manifesting where it wasn't before. Much ill health can be laid at the door of the sufferer, it's not a thing unless it relates to information needed to treat the condition better.

Now the neocon overture is extending increasingly into health care. That's not for any good reason. 'Obesity' predates this, it was a soft spot waiting to be exploited.

People are harassing us because they are told by HCPs et al that it is a medical necessity.

It's a bit like being told by a charity which deals with homelessness that you shouldn't give money to homeless people. It would feel cruel, but you might stop if you assumed charities would never tell lies against those they're in existence to help.

It's that sort of allowance that's being made. People know this is horrible. They go out of their way not to be linked with fat people, in hopes of avoiding this particular response, to the extent that this often reminds you how badly the caring professions are behaving.

It's like there's no "debate". The notion that there is, keeps people from acknowledging that the failure of cal res is a scientific fact, not an opinion or belief. Miring them in a useless back and forth, where the arguer has conceded the argument as a basis for their position.

An agenda to equalise structural oppression expressing itself socially, with social peer pressure appears to have wrapped itself around fat acceptance. Who benefits from the notion that racism, sexism etc., are merely about social niceties, requiring only good behaviour? In other words what some call PC. You heard it in Bill Maher's screed, claiming people are being shamed out of racism.

Racism is presented as not about economics, but about bad manners. 

__________________________

P.S. Just a word about medical negligence, refusal to treat. That has also come largely from seeking to leverage whatever HCPs have to get fat people on restrictive diets, which continue to fail, ergo, the ante is upped, until they're refusing to treat people or "misdiagnosing". People say, they're not believed, but if you listen to what they're saying, the HCP is trying to get them to diet. Dangling the prospect of treatment as a reward.

The alternative is to find the correct way to alter weight, or to drop the whole forcing people to lose weight this way and accept fatness. They do not seem to wish to do either.

Disease - Infection by a pathogen or the degeneration of an organ or system

Simple.

There is nothing to debate "What exactly is disease?" It's how words work. You use them for the meaning or definition you have attached them too. When you break this rule, words cease to work. You end up asking "What does x word mean?" The inability of medics to clearly define a term as central to their practise as disease is not simply a philosophical back and forth it is a genuine crisis.

One which should lead to an immediate reversal of the conditions that created it, which as far as I can tell is the application of said term to that which it does not define.

As for 'obesity'. The meaning of that term is in the mind of the beholden. It could pass for an opinion, but it is not a fact,

The Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA) previously addressed the issue. Based on its interpretations of definitions of disease in common use, the Council argued that it was premature to classify obesity as a disease, citing the lack of characteristic signs or symptoms due to obesity, as well as evidence of any true causal relationships between obesity and morbidity and/or mortality.

It is variously defined by its adherents as having a body mass index of 30+, weight increase, fat tissue, "excess" fat tissue with sometime addition of  such as "fat accumulation" and "that presents risk to health" et al. The real 'debate' around that remains, is this a thing? [Answer: Hardly!]

This balderhockey does not even sound like a disease, even if there was something to fit up. Promoters of this like to try to accumulate meaning into this void by seeking to pretend that there's some aching-agonistes around other actual diseases and/or they cite preceding faux diseases-the very ones that have led to disease's loss of meaning in the first place.

Psychological disease presumably-mental illness, is not disease, it's more metaphorical. I only got used to using the term on the Internet, when it became too hard to dodge. Cardiovascular disease, refers to the degeneration of an organ. Cancer is obviously a disease, but given my ignorance and that its coinage is in something of a flux,  I can say little more than it is a pathological process or processes that produce mutated cells, destroying tissues and organs, leading to their removal-like bariatric surgery does-except in the absence of any disease.

Risk factors like hypertension are not diseases, they are symptoms, one that's cause(s) are often obscure. "Frederick Akbar Mahomed". Nor is there anything "difficult" about the difference between high blood sugar a symptom and that which it is used to diagnose-diabetes, a disease. As for osteoporosis that presumably is the degeration of certain bone tissue.

Conclusions, cease and reverse the instrumentalisation of disease. Respect the importance of the term and do not give in to any entreaties to mis-use it. The term does not exist to 'recognise', validate or manipulate feelings.

Body mass is not disease, nor does it lend itself to disease as a metaphor. It cannot even be described as a symptom, unless possibly, if it is as a result of a specific pathology. Whether any amount of it can be dubbed 'healthy' or no, makes no odds to what is supposed to be the required response and that is to halt and/or reverse it.

This requires no pathologisation, medicalisation, assault or brutality. It requires a truthful understanding of metabolic function and gentle resetting of relevant functions.

Arguments come from the refusal to focus directly and solely on this rather than fiction. There can be no separation between a person and the size of that person. To pathologise weight is to pathologise the person. A person suffering from such a pronounced self-pathology would be diagnosable as suffering from a mental pathology.

This is cannot be diagnosis, this is iatrogenic or doctor induced injury.

People go to their doctor to relieve suffering, not to induce it.

The treatment for BED? Stop Calorie Restriction Dieting and Stop Pathologising Your Body/Self

American Addiction Centre's page called "Compulsive Overeating". The question with binge eating disorder has always been what is it?

...absolutely no control around food. Since many binge eaters restrict food intake...

If you are restricting your intake, then that's,  by these people's notion "control".

The snake swallows its tail after first slithering toward something getting hold of it in its teeth. The intensity of pursuit narrows its peripheral vision until it ends up biting its own tail. The cycle is complete and is able to perpetuate itself.

With anorexia-restriction, circuitry around the response to hunger seems to weaken and /or the circuitry around blocking is activated and becomes powerful. An ever decreasing vortex of response ensues.

With binge/purge-restricting certain foods, increases appetite for them til that becomes irresistible creating panic leading to a salvaging action of purging stomach contents (aspire assist) this reduces/threatens to reduce energy intake, which increases hunger function to compensate for lack or prospect of it. A cycle is established.

Then you have binge eating disorder, 

...defined as consuming large amounts of food within a two-hour period at least twice a week without purging, accompanied by a sense of being out of control.

That's not a cycle. Also, the equivalent of "purging" is the restriction beforehand. It's a reversal of binge/purge, instead its restrict/restore. One step forward, one step back.

That this is not really an eating disorder like anorexia or binge/purge is confirmed by this startling piece of information: "...an issue that’s remarkably responsive to treatment.." EDs aren't remarkably responsive to what passes for "treatment", because that doesn't consist of any technique that does the job of restoring response to hunger.

Responsivity to "change the way they think about and consume food" is a voluntary action. The whole point of a disorder is it has become involuntary, that's why people ask for, or end up in hospital needing help.

I've usually struggled to grasp what BED advocates were getting at, the coinage contains different cross currents of hunger and other metabolic dysfunction. The addiction folk don't get it, for them-eating=thinking. They want to fit it into their model. "...they think of food in addictive terms."  "They’re obsessed with food..." Obsessed with food is those using the diet-weight hypothesis;

...unusual relationship with food. ...they think about food...they gorge on food... ...change the way they think about and consume food. ...a great deal of food.. ...hidden foods and/or food wrappers. ...unaware of the smell or the taste of the foods... 

That's the first 6-7 paragraphs, excluding all references to eat, eating and binge. 

Food. Food, food, food, food, food, food, ........................foooooood. Food. Dammit. Foooooood. Once you step back from all this and you really begin to feel the senseless obsessiveness of it all.

From BED advocates descriptions, I'd realised it's probably an effect of chronic calorie restriction dieting. As I said, there is no yo-yo dieting, dieting is the yo-yo. If it takes at all, this heightened hunger is one reason why it doesn't.  

I had to reserve judgement in case I was missing something. They also vigorously denied this link.

Since many binge eaters restrict food intake during the day and binge at night, the goal is to get them to eat three meals a day and a snack.

Those who treat eating disorders use duress and pressure to get some restoration of a person's hunger response. Getting someone to eat three meals a day is hardly that. It's more like someone who hasn't been eating properly.

Despite "diet culture" etc., people still cannot grasp that calorie restriction dieting is inherently unbalanced. Including if not especially people who should know better by now. This may come as a surprise given the insistence that "weight loss" is an absolute no-no due to continued conflation of that with cal res dieting. 

Seems (dieting induced) weight loss is totally bad, but dieting itself can be good, so much so, that this gets in the way of perceiving the unbalancing effects of dieting. "Good dieting" is when your body overcomes the assault, not the the nature of the assault itself.

If you smoked furiously for a few years, stopped and your body did not succumb to any related probs later. That's not "good smoking" that's your body's operations standing up to that pressure. As they are designed to do but cannot in every instance.

I've put it out there that the "obesity diagnosis" is not compatible with mental health, it is an assault on it, not the "drug addiction movement" [no such thing]. Freudian slippage on "fat acceptance movement" there. Addicts do not reverse their dependence, they go through withdrawal, that doesn't demand much transferable skill.

This sort of linking of fatness to various pathologies seeks to use your acceptance of terms supposedly embedded in our psyche. Usually to do with finessing professional failures as the way its supposed to be, up to an including letting people die -yes, what Michael Buerk said. 

Whether or not one can be fully cured of binge eating depends on one’s definition of “cured.” 

That'd be normal hunger function, which is of course not their aim because they're not charged with solving anything. What they've forgotten is the current targets of their theatre are. If something is "remarkably responsive to treatment.." treatment which consists of voluntary action of stopping cal res dieting and the pathologising of yourself and your body-should fully 'cure' it.

Treatment often begins with efforts to recognize distorted, all-or-nothing thinking .....

Like;

Normal people don’t consume 4,500 calories worth of food in one sitting, or order takeout for four when dining alone. 

Yeah they do, it's the function, not the person. See how journalist generalised from the specific, typical all or nothing thinking, like 'obesity', which because someone else feels some way about your size, the whole of you must be defined by that feeling.

Finesse Fail

Clarifying something I touched on in "Do Nothing Culture", breaking the phenomena into 3 sections makes it easier to reference, recognise and discuss.

1. Represents the Solution. 
2. Represents the Focal Point. 
3. Represents the Result.

Number 1. The Solution, refers to the method being applied to resolve; Number 2. The Focal Point. Number 3. the Result is the outcome of applying number 1 to number 2.

The "Do Nothing" I was referencing is when the proposed "solution" is more important than the actual result of applying it to no.2 the focal point. The result, in the case of failure, partial or total, has to be finessed. That is, made to look as if it hasn't failed.

Usually by diverting attention back to the focal point, redefining it in terms of the result. For example, insisting that it is disease ["call for obesity to be reclassified as disease", "The AMA declared alcoholism was an illness in 1956", "Disease Model of addiction"] or a very serious complex disease "obesity: a chronic relapsing disease* process". Either or alongside this, there tends to be the conveyance of a message that, the this is how things are supposed to be or there's no alternative to no.1. 

The sticking point with the solution is often cultural in nature, whether it's the kind of healing disciplines available, or some idea in the society at large of what the focal point signifies, or how to treat it. For example, no.1 can be more of a punishment, or test or rite of passage that must be negotiated, regardless of practicalities.

The FF tactic tends to be going strongest in fields that do not study an objectively material subject. For example, mental health, psychiatry, psychology study the mind, which is a construct, not say, a distinct organ or system.

The imperative behind FF is usually to shore up number 1 as a viable solution, to keep it in play.

Finesse fail differs from the scientific method, as that tends to centre around through investigation of the focal point, number 2, without fear or favour. This means solutions tend to arise out of observations gleaned from this. When the solution is applied, the results feedback into correcting, altering, jettisoning, the solution. Progress is through this self-correction.

Funnily enough, fat people have also been conditioned into such kind of rigour, in the sense that we held ourselves and are held to that account for the outcome of applying the solution to the focal point. The failure of dieting was regarded as our failure to spare dieting and keep it in play.

Finesse Fail leads to an open-ended cycle of repetition of the said 'solution', this repetition becomes a way of life or "lifestyle", an identity even, where those repeating can claim to be "in recovery" until they age out of it usually in middle age. "Most people with addiction simply grow out of it",

The idea that addiction is typically a chronic, progressive disease* that requires treatment is false, the evidence shows. Yet the ‘ageing out’ experience of the majority is ignored by treatment providers and journalists.

Time can deliver some finesse of its own.

*💩

Fear and Loathing

Fat generates fear and loathing, and it's not about looks or the supposed Darwinian reverence for beauty, heath et al. "Obese mannequins are selling women a dangerous lie". It's a (true) burden we must all endure, trying to work out what the hell ob cultists are going on about at any one time. We are told we must "treat" ourselves with exercise.

Your GP can advise you about losing weight safely by eating a healthy, balanced diet and regular physical activity.

Presumably one might wear stuff created for such exertions promoted as the primary weapons of war. You have to remember the 'obesity' construct and its cult, including its continued promotion of CRIWL-calorie restriction induced weight loss, requires the suspension of critical (and moral) faculties. This leads people to display something akin to trance logic,

An altered mental state in which a person’s normal capacity for critical analysis is suspended, and an increased level of logical inconsistencies is tolerated...the alternate thinking process that enables ideas that would be paradoxical to the conscious self to peacefully coexist within the mind

See what I mean?

I fear that the war on obesity is lost, or has even, as is fashionable, ceased to exist, for fear of upsetting people into an early grave.

We're talking about weight change, war is not required, all that is, is to find out how to reset the body's destination with regard to its (homeostatic) restoration of its own mass. Put simply, a way to use the body to alter weight, that works. Is that Tanya's complaint? Quackery continuing in place of science, about what a disgrace that is? 

Nike Inc, the multinational company named after the Greek goddess of victory, has introduced plus-sized mannequins to its flagship store in London to “celebrate the diversity and inclusivity of sport”. They wear the famous Nike tick, which says: welcome to the mainstream.

Okay, she's talking about the un or dis-easing of fat people to the point where it surpasses the dis-easing of (repeating) the same pathological and doomed experiment of weight loss dieting. This un-easing consists mostly of; medicalisation, pathologisation, bullying, insulting, punishing, condemning, silencing and hiding the existence of people above a certain size. Tanya feels this mannequin represents a violation of those well-known medical tools. Why isn't she prepared to state this clearly?

I would never want a woman to hate herself for what she finds in the looking-glass.  

She can't bear to think of herself as the type of person who would seek to make women unhappy on account of their looks. 

Advertising has always bullied women, but this is something more insidious. I have watched the spindly, starved creature – the child ballet dancer – who was, for many years, the accepted ideal, walking down the Paris runways in so much make-up you could miss the signs of malnutrition. It was an ideal designed to induce enough self-hatred that women would shop to be rid of it.

Always bullied, really? Not, welcomed them to the "mainstream"? You know I've never found this sort of rhetoric remotely plausible, not even when I first heard it as a child. Then I assumed I'd catch on eventually. Not so. 

My view is simpler, advertisers strive to shift the product of those who pay them. Haute Couture is well known to be a province of middle and upper class folk. Fashion uses thin models to sell their clothes as female curves were felt to distract from the rags they display. In terms of its mores, its an outgrowth of middle and upper class sentiments and ideals, of what they aspire to be.

Middle and upper class [slim] women complain about this by shooting the messenger, thin women and their bodies, but what they're really complaining about is not winning at thinning. They don't want to dismantle this system of "unattainable bodies", they want to win at being the it-girl. They're uneased about that so they re-route their complaint. Rather than examine their own feelings.

If this is about poor old innocent women being made unhappy bad men in advertising, why does the notion of having something that works for all women not really interest these complainers? Winning wouldn't be exclusive then would it? You can see this in the elitism of Tanya types in her desperately trying to have her celery and munch it too, trying to be underhand in exhorting everyone to keep fat women in their place, hidden.  

This sort of argument as it is presented is dead on its auto-dialled arse. Fat phobia is ruthlessly exposing it and others,

Recovery depends not on...... personal responsibility and seeing the truth.

Personal responsibility and seeing the truth eh? What's personally responsible about insisting your mind is in the control of advertisers? That they dictate your view of yourself? If you are so personally responsible, why don't you own your mind? Either you like the perfume etc., advertised, or you don't. If you do buy it-through personally responsibly earning sufficient funds- if you dont, leave it be. 

Why are you so oppressed by images folks trying to sell you stuff use? I'm waiting for you to tell me again in a way that doesn't require you to do/be the opposite of what you insist fat women are/are failing to be. Have at it TanTan.

the truth is not so pretty; it is unease that sells clothes and bags and perfume and cosmetics as redemption

What uneases you, eases us? Presumably that is the distance between refinement and erm, being as common as fat. How does feminism make sense if women differ so fundamentally?

The fat-acceptance movement, which says that any weight is healthy if it is yours, is no friend to women, even if it does seem to have found a friend in Nike.

FAM says pretty much what Tanya said in her 2008 piece, "In defence of our fatties, let them eat cake".

For many months now, it has been clear that I'm at war with society. Or rather, that society is at war with me. Call me paranoid if you must but everywhere I look, I am denounced, oppressed and scolded. According to the advertising industry, I am unattractive; men don't want me. Or if they do, they certainly won't tell their friends about it. Clothing shops don't cater for me. In fact, they detest me. In Bond Street, I am literally waved away from the racks of precious clothes.

Well.....

...the Kim Kardashian body – was even weirder, and worse. It’s both fat and thin – a pornographic body designed by gamers – and, if you are mad enough to want it, is only really achievable by surgery and sleeping in the gym.

Those hating fat women's bodies invariably like to go in hard on other women's bodies-they're demonstrating their fairness. Word to them, spreading your mysognist gaze to other bodies, isn't saving you. I mean, "pornographic body"? Your guess is as good as mine.

She obviously does want FAT women to hate themselves for what they see in the looking glass. That doesn't sound good at all. It would be bad enough if you said you wanted women to hate themselves on account of their looks. Picking out specific women somehow sounds like trying to creep through a squeaking door. The feminist notion of "sisterhood" ergo, all women and feminism itself is on the ropes.

But to have control over your body you must first know it; to be oblivious is not to be happy, unless you are a child.

Oblivious to what hun? It's called FAT acceptance, is thin now spelled f-a-t?

To know your body is not by any means to hate it, Tanya knows this, but how to advocate for women to be pressed into doing something by making them feel like shit about themselves until they keep doing it: for some, whilst complaining any such discomfiture oppresses women, without seeming to be a sell-out biche?

Dear o' lorrr, it's a conundrum I don't envy. 

Suffice it to say again, this could all be avoided by finding the proper way to alter bodyweight rather than trying to uphold discomfort to drive people into repeating failure and deepening despair. But people like Tanya don't seem to want that either.

Repeat Fail, Complain About Fail, Repeat Fail, Repeat Complaint About Repeated Fail......part 2

Hunger = signal, eating = response acts as a dynamic to regulate your body's intake. Dieting, by seeking to block the latter, stops this from being any use, passing the calculus from your body to your conscious mind, which was not designed for this. 

The reason for having diet plans in the first place, was to prompt you on how much to eat, as you have lost your guide. It also seeks to guess the proportion of nutrients your body needs, also something your body does automatically, by design.

During all this, your body continues to make its calculations, that's inbuilt, which get thrown off more and more by this pointless ill-judged obstacle in its way.

Diet peddlers don't mention dieting alone creates the need for calorie counting. Followed by; weighing and measuring your food, portion suggestions 'control', labelling on food, cal counts in menus, even drugs and the removal of the stomach etc., all seek to repair the same initial fault, none of them do more than create the need for yet another intervention.

One of the reasons for this seems to lie in our desired goals: people who want to lose weight tend to underestimate their food consumption, while those who want to gain weight, are more likely to overestimate it....

In other words, dieting dismantles the ability it requires to implement it. Literally, destroying itself. Genius.

...people with small appetites perceive even a small amount of food as a lot

 That's how it feels when your hunger matches your intake, regardless of how much or little you eat, you feel satisfied.

Ultimately, perception is the deciding factor: someone with a naturally small appetite and someone with a large appetite will perceive the same portion of food completely differently

The deciding factor is the settings your body is operating to, not what you put in your body. Perception tells you how you are using or mis-using your body. A tall person perceives the highest shelf in the store differently than a short person, because they are different to them. What makes them taller or shorter is SETTINGS.

In most cases, a person who can 'eat anything she wants without gaining weight', simply cannot and/or does not want to eat more than she does, and she doesn't have the feeling she is denying herself anything.

Though I have never liked the term, anyone can eat anything they want and not put on weight, as long as their body is holding its own. It is the requirement to lose weight by mis-using your body that causes the problems or 'perception' difficulties. The consequence of the failure is not the cause of the failure.

According to her perception, she always eats as much as she wants, while her overweight acquaintances complain of constant self-denial.

That is because she IS eating what she wants, by responding to her signals properly. Her "acquaintances" aren't permitted such privilege, therefore they are not using their bodies in the same way [and therefore cannot be judged as if they are].

Often, it is the occasions when she completely pigged out that lodge in her memory, while the fact that he forgot to eat breakfast, or that she didn't eat a thing during the eight hours between breakfast and dinner, are simply forgotten.

Again that is just normal eating regardless of size or intake. We remember feasts, special outings, parties and catching up, sometimes we deliberately "save" up a bit of hunger to experience the velocity that comes with that. I can no longer say for sure whether I am greedy or not. I feel like I am, because like "her" I meet my needs. When I didn't, I didn't feel like I ate what I did, personally. Though that continued even after the initial lowering of my intake. I too don't eat during the day, and think little of it. This is largely down to stopping dieting, though it does not necessarily happen automatically.

An overweight person, by contrast, will be more likely to underestimate portion size and to forget about the between-meal snacks they had.

That is the price they they are paying for 'advice' to be permanently on a dieting life sentence, not to mention the nastiness aimed at them and their bodies. 

The only useful way to get a realistic idea of your eating habits is to weight absolutely every mouthful with a set of kitchen scales and write it down.

Or you could just reduce hunger function. Tell us again why professionals don't wish to find out how to do this? As certain fat phobes say; "Wouldn't it be easier than writing books about why people must keep repeating the same failure?"

Repeat Fail, Complain About Fail, Repeat Fail, Repeat Complaint About Repeated Fail......

As you know we are all required by health care professionals et al, to be slim and to do it by one method that's a pretty comprehensive failure. Such epic failure cannot be hidden, either stop pretending that we don't all know this, or attack the person. They're to blame, they're doing something wrong, they've failed.

This is a major driver of their attacks on fat people, not deeply held antagnoism. The effect on the targets of this is on the ability to perceive our own actions and their results. It also has led fat people to feel they have no credibility, in this and other areas.

It is this not "disbelief" which prompts policing people into this state of self-incredulity, it is the salvaging of dieting. Belief is faith or assertion in the absence of evidence or conclusive evidence, either for or against. The evidence here is overwhelming, dieting has failed. Every person above an acceptably designated size, who's dieted, is evidence.

Here's a current example of the everlasting cycle to present the individual as defective and dieting as viable. "I lost 13 stone – now I know the truth about obesity" by Nadja Hermann. It's the same old shit its all in your head, but her spin is your problem is your "fat logic" [yup]. This led me assume she was, Marillia Brocchetto "Reddit's bullies pushed me to fight weight gain", turns out not.

Urban Dick defines "fat logic" as,

The astounding mental gyrations obese people use to justify their size. Fatlogic never, ever includes eating too much and exercising too little.

The notion of anybody "justifying their size" is created by ci/co, something pushed by the 'obesity' crusade.

Herman says,

The term doesn’t mean “fat people’s logic”, but refers to the complex grab bag of supposedly medical facts, well-meaning advice, homegrown ideas and fantasies that make losing weight not only difficult, but impossible.

Dickhead's version is really Nadja's, sans the female performance of 'nice'. Sounds like the usual "fat thinking" trope. I remember being haunted by the notion that I was thinking fat thoughts without knowing it. Like a lot of fatz, I ended up becoming hyper vigilant, trying to catch myself out thinking these thoughts that contradicted my overweening desire to be slim. I wish I was joking.

My main goal is to expose the system of supposed wisdom and well-meant advice about obesity and weight loss as nothing but fat logic, as a vicious circle of fallacies and myths. I intend to do it by taking each individual claim of fat logic that together make up that system and directly debunking them, one by one.

The "system"?

You're still with the reality that dieting itself is not simply punitive but doesn't work? Allow me to go on. Getting hooked on smack is associamafacated with lower risk of ob, buuuuttt, it is pathological, it can lead to your death, (results not typical).

Dieting is pathological, starvation is a way to die and it doesn't work, i.e. it's not effective, two fails for the price of one. Keep that in mind.

For me breaking the cycle was the pivotal change. As a behavioural therapist, I failed to deal with my own weight for years. The reason is that (behavioural) therapy can only work if we recognise which behaviours we need to change, and we are convinced that therapy will be effective and we will be able to make it work. 

"..can only work.....if we are convinced that therapy will be effective and we will be able to make it work." Wouldn't it be easier to just find something fit for the task that has built-in efficacy? Why should we have to bend and twist up ourselves to "make it work" if it already does work? What is its effectiveness beyond us then? And if we are its effectiveness and we are "defective", this is hardly going to end well is it?

What she's claiming is that if y'all will just stop entertaining fatty thoughts, you'll be mad keen (again) on weight loss dieting, just like you were in the good old days. You know you would.

"Lose weight" =starving off weight. Also, "eating behaviour"=eating. She's emphasising the use of "eating behaviour" because the "obesity community" wants it eating to be viewed as behavioural.

Hunger=signal, eating=response.

The Emperor's New Clothes

Before I get to part two of "Your weight takes nothing from you", I want to concentrate on re-visiting the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is a good way to grasp the weight mess regards who believes or doesn't believe what, why or whom.

I repeat what I said, there is nothing to believe. The truth is in plain sight. Millions of people have been told they must become slim, not "lose weight" actually become a slim person. Whatever else is going on is swimming around that. The upshot is the means given to people by the science/research/medical/HC establishment doesn't work, as well as being inherently pathological.

The primary activity of said establishment is to appear to rage against this failure, which is their own- as if it is the failure of their targets. In order it seems to get them to continue to keep repeating this failure, as if it reality isn't happening. 

This cannot continue. So the issue here is that this alternative to, the truth we can all see is being held in place by reputation of the establishment, aided and abetted by the refusal/inability of anyone/ group to consistently point to the truth and to reject focusing on the fiction being upheld.

How to focus on the facts has already been demonstrated by fat people/activists when they insisted on repeating the fact that "Diets don't work." This prompted attacks from all sides, mainly ad hominem, not to mention doubts within, but fat people kept at it, regardless.

The upshot of this is everyone has been forced to recognise this, whether they like it or not. Even if it means them starting a sentence with such as, "Of course dieting doesn't work....." before they tack back to acting like/insisting it does.

DDW for short, isn't enough to derail the crusade, but it has been forced to yield to that reality to some degree. If fat people did nothing but this, in response to any talk about weight, it would increase the pressure on those seeking to continue the lie.

The truth fight of crusaders is with human biology as it is, rather than as they wish it to be. Fat people are most caught in that crossfire, used to make it look less irrational. 

This is the basics of how to fight this crusade, or at least its lies. I'm not saying its all of it, but any less than this is something folks will have to explain. I don't give a damn how you feel about your size, pretty much every fat person should be able by now to point to and stick to the facts, pretty much at all times.

It doesn't matter whether you are desperate to exit fatness or to not. If you wish to be slim, you need the white coats to stop this fuckery, if you wish fatness to be a neutral descriptor/positive state, you need the same.

The crusade is shafting both those who wish to be slim and those who are indifferent or not interested. As well as blocking progress in other areas of metabolic function.

The story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" is about an exceptionally vain(glorious) fashionisto emperor, who becomes a career opportunity for a couple of ambitious grifters.

The two weavers promise him a set of clothes so fine and wonderful that only the great and good in society will be able to see it.

In a sense the highlighted is the white coated ones 'invisible', i.e. non-existing, alternative to truth. Fat people are told that we cannot see this alternative they call 'science', because we are unworthy, not because it isn't real. Effectively silencing and sidelining fat people from the common discoure. Whatever we say is wrong, so we can be utterly disregarded. That could be seen as upsetting, but we don't fit into the discourse others are having anyway.

They [the clothes] will be quite invisible to anyone who is stupid, incompetent or unworthy of their position in society.

The whole point of reaching a place of self-recognition/acceptance w/e is that we have either seen through this, or at least recognise the received 'wisdom' doesn't add up.

Such a set of clothes would be perfect for a great Emperor. They would suit his sense of self-importance, and their magical properties of invisibility, to the unworthy, would enable him to find out which of his ministers were unfit for their jobs. This is evident when the emperor says, "...and I could tell the wise men from the fools."

The emperor's fiction doesn't match the reality we can all see, only the worthy, everyone who is not fat, can see. 

When the Emperor finally walks out among his subjects in his non-existent finery, the crowds watch eagerly. They all want to see which of their friends or neighbours are so stupid that they cannot see the clothes. What actually happens, of course, is that none of them see any clothes. Still, no one says anything. Some are too embarrassed to tell the truth. They think that they must be too stupid to see the clothes. Perhaps others believe that to say anything derogatory would be to draw attention to the truth of the Emperor's own stupidity. Perhaps others simply do not wish to be the first to speak out with a contrary voice. 

This is about where we are with this weight foolishness. I don't want to wear it out, but we saw this the other week with a certain columnist, who knew the NHS was promoting crash dieting, but somehow could quite bring herself to believe this could be so, "Is an NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don’t?" The first line is,

Is a crash diet no longer considered a crash diet because it has been validated by medicine?

She knows the answer just as well as anyone else, a diet is a diet no matter who's backing it. But its hard to say in the face of the notion that it is unwise not to uphold white coat pretense.

If fat people are not the people to point to reality, then who? Complaining that others aren't is one thing, but not whilst you aren't yourself doing it. You don't even have to confront the white coated ones if you don't want. You simply have to call nakedness, nakedness, without equivocation or pretence.

Whether you argue with others or not, stick to reality. No matter how many times you get side-tracked, once you recognise you are drifting back to the fiction, stop yourself, then reset and repeat. Eventually, you will learn to stick with realism regardless of the pressure. Just like DDW.

Stick to your guns, until others realise at the very least that you will not be persuaded or coaxed back to supporting their fiction. Yes, it may not stop them as we see above, but what it will do is change you. And that has already proven to matter more than what others are or aren't doing.

If you screen out any bluff and bluster, you are likely to stop participating in someone else's folie de grandeur, at least make them do all that themselves. Let them sweat to maintain😅😏.

So, how does the fable end?

Only one small child, who is far too innocent of all this pretension and social convention, shouts out, "But he hasn't got anything on!" At first, the little boy's father tries to correct the boy, but gradually the news breaks out and everyone finally realises that they are not alone in their inability to see the clothes. Slowly, but surely, everybody finds that there is strength in numbers and they begin to admit there is nothing to see. Realizing how foolish they and the emperor have been, they begin to laugh. The Emperor cringes, but continues with the procession, because to turn back now would be to admit his own gullibility. Better to carry on thinking that he is the only one who has the wisdom to see the clothes than to admit ignorance. His courtiers, likewise, feel they have to continue to live the lie, so they dutifully follow their leader.

Don't let sympathy for the white-coated ones inhibit you. I have the utmost respect for many who wear the coat, so I say from a place of high regard, that this is proof that they're riding for a fall. That's a better description of real "tough love". 

Even if people continue to barrack you for dealing in realness, the truth will prevail. Will that be enough to stop the crusade?

We shall see.

Utilitarian Hate: People Don't Really Really Hate Fat People

Our pre-FA default used to be to not take fat phobia and hatred seriously, now activists are deciding again that the opposite of this is to take it too seriously. The point is not our attitude to fatphobia, it's our attitude to our own experiences and defining those as they are, which will have to be outside the ob cult's framework.

Fat phobia is not at root a heartfelt reaction, it is strategy.

Strategy, A plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim. In addition, A strategy is a framework for making decisions about how you will play the game of business. 

For business read play the game of repressing other people's (and your own weight).

In a 2013 journal article, bioethicist Daniel Callahan argued for more stigma against fat people. “People don’t realize that they are obese or if they do realize it, it’s not enough to stir them to do anything about it,” he tells me. Shame helped him kick his cigarette habit, he argues, so it should work for obesity too.

Strategy. The most important thing about this essay-if you can find some way of accessing it, do-is it explains very well how the whole white coat brigade's weight strategy works. Hate-away-other people's-weight.

Other physicians sincerely believe that shaming fat people is the best way to motivate them to lose weight.

Strategy. There's nothing remotely sincere about it.

“It’s the last area of medicine where we prescribe tough love,” says Mayo Clinic researcher Sean Phelan. 

Strategy. Love of any kind is not a "prescription".

If you know you are not anorexic, yet are being pushed down that route. If you know you are not sick, but are being pushed to pretend you are, why would the fact of white coat professionals using the whipping up of prejudice as a tool and strategy for "weight management" be so beyond either your own or other people's perception?

Why does the need to take all this in an overly literal way keep coming back like a bad smell? What is it supposed to achieve?

Hatred of fat people is mostly falsified performance. Fat phobia is a trained response. That doesn't make it not disturbing, after all, we know that though acting is false, it can still affect us.

Going back to bioethicist Daniel Callahan, hatred of fatness is deemed ethical behaviour. A phobic level response is deemed the correct one. Anything less is deemed backsliding or even corrupt, i.e. "promoting obesity". I made this point more recently when this desire to take this behaviour as if it was somehow a natural response,

"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 vigilante 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'.

That feeling that this is ethical is true internalisation. The feeling that it is somehow wrong not to harass fat people with (increasingly) health-trolling. It is interesting that mainstream activist types and cult promoters love to present the notion that this contrived barracking is deep feeling, 

There’s a grim caveman logic to our nastiness toward fat people. “We’re attuned to bodies that look different,” says Janet Tomiyama, a stigma researcher at UCLA. “In our evolutionary past, that might have meant disease risk and been seen as a threat to your tribe.” These biological breadcrumbs help explain why stigma begins so early. Kids as young as 3 describe their larger classmates with words like “mean,” “stupid” and “lazy.
........the most hard-wired problem of all: Our shitty attitudes toward fat people.

Do you see the same notion that constant pile-ons, health-trolling, hatred, and fat phobia are so natural even fighting with all our might does nothing? Not only that though remember, 'obesity' is fake, it has to be created. If people just let fat people be, we would not simply decide to make ourselves unhappy, tired and defeated for no reason.

It's also a psychological assault to manufacture an imagined pathological state called 'obesity'.

If this organised rancour, this weaponised "peer pressure" is so natural, why is it supported by an industry spitting out "studies" on how fat people are costly parasites draining everyone else dry? Why the creation and ceasless stoking of grievance?

There are plenty of gay fat people out there. How many of you have experienced those moments of extreme tension when there's a palpable threat to your life?

How many people have been beaten to death purely because they are fat? Now consider, what percentage of people wouldn't dream of harming a gay person for their mere existence? But can you find one person who doesn't agree fat people should be constantly harassed?

So why aren't fat bodies piling up in hospitals from life-threatening beatdowns?

The pain of being fat is more emotional attrition. It's the fear of being exposed, humiliated, piled-on, cornered, attacked verbally. The only likely exception to this is in healthcare settings, that's the only place where some fat people actually experience the sort of life threatening assault.

Recently I saw some of a programme which featured a young fat woman who was stuck, under pressure by the usual circling of the white coats. She was told she should be lined up for mutilation, that girl howled like a wolf. 

It's clear this is a topdown thing, no matter how much activists collude with their 'betters' to pretend otherwise. To gloam onto the notion that ordinary folks are just savages. That seems to be a class thing and its a little bit shocking how much bourgie fat activists want to go with this.

It's the other way around, people have been told they're supposed to behave towards fat people, by those who administer and influence power. They're doing what they're told. Look at Barbara Ellen the other week, not being able to unequivocally state the bountifully obvious fact of medics promoting starvation dieting.

People are scared not to fall in line. They're becoming like we . Suggesting the fear some of us felt and still feel is a product of being an unquestioning vessel for someone else's malevolent thoughts.

Now isn't that a doozy?

Something about being a container, someone else's tool and puppet shrinks your courage. 

The idea of the ob cult has always been, citizens can and should endeavour to control or influence people's weight from the outside in, through abuse and now trolling permanently unsettling them, making it unpleasant to merely exist. This will shove them into escaping to slimness as fast as they can, by any means you force them down, no matter how painful. Given that means is starvation,  the pain of being needs to outrank the pain of that. 

The complaining about "promoting obesity" happens whenever health trolling is felt to be lacking. Management has to be constant. It is after all supposed to be replacing the functioning of your own body.

It's in the nature of people that when they perform a response, feeling, emotion, notion repeatedly with enough vigour, it becomes more than mere performance. In other words, their attempt to re-size our weight from the outside has reshaped their minds and their emotional landscape. 

So no, people don't really, really hate fat people, they're performing their duty, like the good little boys and girls that they are. Just as we used to do with our quest to be slim.


You aren't arguing with their feelings, your arguing with their desire to do what they've been told is the right thing.

Why I Don't Have a "Relationship with Food"

The current reign of the diet deranged means a lot of their garbage jargon is being increasingly normalised, foisted on the unwary and the uninterested. One piece of empty phraseology that's achingly impressed with itself is "relationship with food", prefaced by such as "Your" or "What's your?" and the like.

To clear away any potential ambiguity.

I. Do. Not. Have. A. Relationship. With. Food: Full Stop.

Given the only people who appear to have less indifference to the word "NO", usually have to serve time if convicted. I'm going to condescend a few words to explain why folks need to miss me [and I've little doubt plenty others] with this one.

My idea of a relationship, and I'm sure most people's, is based on reciprocity. Meaning you can only have a real relationship with a living entity that has an inner life or consciousness. In other words a sentient being who can return or decline  (or indeed instigate) self-directed connection with your good self.

That doesn't have to be human, can be other animals of all types, as long as that creature is capable of responding to your attentions in some meaningful and measurable way.

Yes, a person might say; "Look how s/he goes" about a boat or car or whatever. But we all know that's just some anthropomorphising jazz. You cannot have a relationship with something that isn't alive or doesn't have some kind of neural structure.

If you do not have that, you are effectively engaging in what used to be termed, "mental masturbation". In other words, you are playing with yourself, your gratification depending on the imaginary device of projecting your own feelings onto an object.

s a device its fine, its when you start acting like you do not know this is not going on in your own mind. That said object is actually interacting with you in the real. The ventriloquist's dummy coming to life is always creepier than a talking doll.

This is perhaps another case of a verb "relate" turning into a noun "relationship" without recognising they aren't interchangeable. You can relate to someone without being in or having a relationship with said person.

You are never having a relationship with an object.

Yes, a person might say, "There s/he goes" about a car or a boat, but that's largely a self-amused reference to the amount of effort and or time the person has invested in said object. 

Cognitive snaggles of this kind torment stalkers and other miscreants d'amour. Feelings of sufficient ardour can leave the sense that this grand feeling must somehow be returned.The notable thing about sex pests is they are almost always acting  on this premise. Often refusing at first to believe the object of their affections could be oblivious to their affections.

The first step in their come down is usually acknowledging that their feelings are theirs and theirs alone. 

We've all fallen for this feeling in some way or t'other, we get over it, becoming aware that others think they're having a relationship with us-that they aren't having. We too realise we may well be in that position with others.

We have; ideas, experiences, myths, legends, tales, memories, associations even dreams about and around food, that's inevitable. Examining, altering, dropping them is a worthwhile notion. It doesn't require this infantilising nomenclature.

Women can have thoughts and ideas, we don't have to be treated, nor treat ourselves as infants to do an inventory of them.

Stop babytalking yourselves and other women and for goodness sake men, do not go down a rabbithole you have thus far escaped.

Starvation: "Not Too Arduous", says Jesting Boffin

With narrow ideology holding all in its rictus grip, the only direction is round and round the same circle. The slimming industry has been routinely propped up, supported and rescued by medics and scientists etc., connected with the 'obesity' industry. Over the decades, doctors have routinely sent their patients to slimming companies, "They're the experts".

Doctors have been behind virtually every kind of diet there is. Name any form of dieting; low-fat, low carb, whole grain, high protein, partial or actual fasting, there's a doctor selling it. With the recent announcement of a slimming industry mainstay, weight watchers, moving away from at least, associating loudly with starvation induced weight loss.

Weight Watchers will now be known as “WW.” The 55-year-old company* just announced that it is rebranding to focus more on overall health. Its new tagline: “Wellness that works.” 

It's about time for the usual suspects to stage an intervention to stop the starvation punishment from becoming recherche. "NHS should prescribe crash diet replacing meals with shakes and nutrition bars to tackle obesity, scientists say", by "prescription", they mean, tell you-you are doing all the work. They are doing nothing.

Partnership with commercial weight loss firms should be extended nationwide to allow GPs to prescribe, scientists add

They don't routinely "prescribe" (very low calorie) VLCD liquid diets due to past experience "Liquid Protein Mayhem", From July 14 1978, an abstract;

...Singh et al (p 115) and Brown et al (p 120) report a total of three deaths of female patients who had adhered faithfully to a liquid protein diet (providing about 300 kcal/day in the form of protein hydrolysate) for five to six months. The immediate cause of death in every case was refractory ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. A fourth patient experienced repeated episodes of ventricular tachycardia, but, after a stormy course, her condition was controlled with phenytoin sodium. The patient subsequently recovered. The ECGs of all four patients showed gross abnormalities of repolarization characterized by prominent U waves and QT_c prolongation. All of the patients were relatively young women aged 27 to 35 years, and, except for their obesity, all had been in good health before undergoing supplemented fasting. 

Do note "had been in good health". That's being written out of reality so harms done by "starvation induced weight loss" can be filed under "obesity-related"-strictly speaking that isn't wrong, it is related to a construct and its morbid crusade.  It shows even this dubious area has degenerated under the duress of trying to enforce starvation as some kind of end in itself.

Dieting used to be all about the low cal. Folks tended to lose larger amounts of weight than in more recent years-if you insist on starving off weight, the closer to starvation dying and death, the better the thinning.

It [VCLD] is not an easy diet to follow. Apart from feeling hungry and low on energy, other side effects can include: dry mouth constipation or diarrhoea, headache, dizziness, cramps, hair thinning

Too much association with destruction and death was doing for the slimming industry, as well as evident failure of the starvation strategy, until doctors stepped in with "health". A healthy diet produced health, window-dressing dieting away from its morbidity [a proper use of that term]. This lending of medical/science legitimacy saved the on its arse grift from a descent into oblivion.

It meant people stopped losing the amounts of weight as before.

Eating shakes, soups and meal replacement bars for three meals a day helped obese patients lose nearly four times as much weight as those told to eat healthily and cut calories, a study has found. Oxford University researchers have reported “total meal replacement” diets, which restrict participants to just 810 calories per day for eight weeks, safely enabled more patients to lose more weight – and keep it off for a year with diet support.

These are the wrong wrong academics/researchers/scientists, obviously. We need ones who are actually interested in finding out how we can use our body's own abilities to regulate its own mass. So we are no longer at the mercy of this increasingly institutionalised iatrogenesis.

I hope this helps to illustrate why until this area is done and dusted, this cycle will continue, with or without self-acceptance. That is a start, a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's an attempt to begin to reverse damage done by this crusade, but it is not enough. Society needs closure and that will only come with finding out how to use our bodies abilities properly. There is nothing wrong with that and there never has been.

The survey results fly in the face of long standing criticism of “crash dieting”, amid fears it can lead to a yo-yo effect where people lose weight but immediately put it back on.

Seeing as professionals are happy to mutilate people into perma-starvation, the acceptance of that's rehabilitating starvation without mutilation.

.....the Oxford University report’s authors argue there is ample evidence such regimes can help combat a growing obesity crisis which is costing the health service billions of pounds to treat complications such as type 2 diabetes

The current message is still out there though. "Fitness guru Joe Wicks cautions against 'beach body' crash diets"

Social media health pro Joe Wicks has urged people to stay healthy and avoid “beach body” crash diets in the lead-up to the summer holidays.

It'll be interesting to see how people like Wicks incorporate this into their spiel. Probably the usual, one law for the subjects another for the objects. 

Professor Paul Aveyard, a co-author of the paper, said: “This study shows that GP referral to a total diet replacement programme in the community is an effective intervention which GPs can confidently recommend, knowing that it leads to sustainable weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease and diabetes.”

What "intervention"? This is an imposition,  a sentence, a punishment. The targets have to endure this, the people starving them get paid.

After 12 months, the participants had lost an average 10.7kg. That compared to an average weight loss of 3.5kg for those who received their GP’s standard weight loss programme, including advice and support from a nurse and written information.

In other words, be confident docs, you now have the go-ahead, sorry. That's what 'studies' are used for nowadays.

Independent experts said it was striking virtually all participants stayed on the programme for the entire 12 months, and suggested sticking with meal replacement is not too arduous.

Independent of what? When there's only one ideology, there's only one way of thinking, unless we're talking about such as; "Marco Rubio condemns 'weirdo Salt Bae' after Venezuela president Nicolas Maduro dines at his restaurant"

Incident sparks outrage among Venezuelans, millions of whom struggle to eat three meals a day.“He is actually the overweight dictator of a nation where 30% of the people eat only once a day & infants are suffering from malnutrition.” Footage showed Mr Maduro dining on expensive steak at the Istanbul restaurant during a stop-off returning from a visit to China, drawing furore back home where millions struggle to get enough to eat and red meat is a rare luxury. Almost two-thirds of Venezuelans surveyed in a university study published in February said they had lost on average 11kg in body weight last year. 

Not too arduous**, leading to sustained weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease, say scientists. How much has Venezuela's diabetes risk fallen by?

*  predates the "obesity crisis" yet somehow managed not to prevent it.
** I'd pay money to see & hear them tell Maduro's critics this.

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?

Thin Women Are Not, And Never Have Been The Enemy

Dear fatphobes,

Kindly cease and desist from using thin bodies to attack fat ones, thanks.

I know you can do this with ease, seeing as you constantly tell us how much self-control you have.

And to clarify, when I say thin I mean thin, not slim-though they aren't the enemy either. Tbh, neither are you really, you're just messing yourself up in the head to the extent of entering your own special needs category.

Anybody who cannot recognise that a person cannot be 'disease' and the "host" of a disease that is themselves, because of defining humans as slim only, isn't entering the game with a full deck.

The notion that the kind of very slender usually very young women who appear on the catwalk harm impressionable gels by their appearance has never been mine for an instant. It has always been a convienient scapegoat and distraction for those who define humanness purely in terms of slimness.

I've never believed nor accepted the sight of a woman as the causal agent of anorexia or any other hunger response issue [yeah, I said that]. But even if it was the case that seeing a thin women triggered young girls to lose weight, proto-anorexia is the only option available. It's not far removed from saying a woman's appearance triggered a sexual assault on them or somone else. And that women's bodies should be covered/not appear to avoid such "provocation."

This from other women has always been largely mischevious, a way of getting back at women who are a size slim women often can't attain due to the punishing privation of the only route of lowering weight. 

That this should be the sole means of inducing weight loss, has been decided by, medical and health care professionals and by societies, acting under their direction, wishing to use proto-anorexia and forced labour to punish fat people and their bodies.

Punishing fat people, means punishing these young girls too. Supporting the former, is supporting the latter.

This is the major cause of revealing the anorexic susceptibility out there, spreading anorexia to become a prescence in demographics where it was largely absent.

Search it.

Anybody who doesn't mention this unequivocally, any time they mention 'eating disorders' or 'body image problems' is at best a lightweight-in the metaphorical sense- or a bullshitter and at worst, in active collusion with unearthing anorexia nervosa in as many people as possible.

Possibly a combination or all of them. 

The price paid for sentencing fat people to starvation and hard labour penance is mainly paid by them, but collateral damage of this is paid by the thinnest people, not least the always forgotten and ignored people who are battling illness and dying because they cannot retain sufficient weight to keep going. 

Medical doctors can go on the media all they want legitimising their eating/exercise disordered, proto-anorexia prescriptions all they want. And before any one tries to play on any pretence of their undivided saintliness on this issue, remember they are currently colluding with and pushing the  mutilation of healthy organs, for the aim of trying to make their favoured practise of dieting stick.

Relying on their politics of respectability-of the his versus her word variety, will only last so long for them. It will catch up with them eventually, hopefully, before too many more people are damaged by their mass sulky quack-ridden brainfart.

In the end, even if seeing a thin woman's body does make a young girl miss a meal, the burden cannot be placed on the often young woman who is often not much older than the young woman with the disorder, or her image.

The burden should be on efficient means of restoring hunger and a sense of balance to the ones suffering from the disorder. The only issue with thinness in the media is if the professional model or actor is under pressure to starve or in other ways abuse themselves to attain or retain and overly low weight for them.

Ceasefire On Your Phony War

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

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

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

To your typical comparison of tobacco with fatsuity;


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

Why that particular war metaphor though?

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

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

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

💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

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

You and your kind are in the driving seat. 

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

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

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

They're getting exactly what they want.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll put it to them in simple terms.

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

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