Vibes Cartel

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

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

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

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

Like;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

A little Bit More 'Obesity' Agnosticism

Holy Guacamole!

Courtesy of estimable Linda Bacon, I just caught up with this,

Some might say that given obesity rates, we should give these obesity researchers the benefit of the doubt and let them collect more data. But here’s the thing: obesity researchers don’t deserve our trust. And despite decades of measuring and billions of dollars of funding, obesity research has not reduced obesity rates.

If these researchers want to come anywhere near our children, they need to come with more than a 50-year track record of failure.

Lols. Round of applause for Kasey Edwards.

Yes, she's restricting her fact-based dismissal to "when it comes to handing out practical advice on nutrition........" But it's a start. It should give activists a sense that slim people aren't so special needs that they have to be pandered to endlessly.

It would seem there is a limit to how much 'obesity researchers' can interfere with childrens' esteem and sense of themselves. They don't have open house.

Decades ago I assumed children would stop this cult in its tracks. One of the more shocking things in all this has been the utter disregard and even direct targeting of children as a route to getting away with things they couldn't get away with, with adults.

If anyone wanted to know how low these drug and mutilation peddlers are it should have been that, but, hey, some times we learn hard.

One of my main motivations for getting involved in the fatsphere was a deep sense that I didn't want another generation of children to grow up in the barren wasteland of negative propaganda with no adults really seeming to speak up to defend them from this.

So it's heartening to think peak 'obesity' could be on the horizon, even if only a prospect, and only in the case of children. I'll take that. I have always said, let's agree to leave children out of this. 'Obesity' shills won't though, they know that you can unseat people's connection with their own experience only in childhood.

They truly are some of the most dishonourable people I've ever encountered. It's not that they're evil, they're just empty. You can often hear them echooooooo.

The above highlight of the utter irrelevance and failure of this noise, ought to be the first sentence anyone mentions when speaking of 'obesity'. The fifty years useless/irrelevant/ineffectual/repetitious 'obesity' industry/science/research/public health whatever, wishes to tell us more of the same old shit its been telling us all that time and promises for ever more-with their ceaseless projections of their continued pointlessness.

The findings suggest that the proportion of individuals in the population defined as overweight will decline slowly in the next 20 years. However, the proportion of the population considered obese will increase substantially and could represent as much as 45% of the entire population by 2035. The proportion of morbidly obese will also increase considerably. These trends are likely to impact the actual costs of health care considerably.

Yes, because you can absolutely guarantee that 'obesity science' will produce nothing of any earthly use, despite the current touting of gastric evisceration.  That's because "public health" bullshitters know 'obesity' is a construct and a biological non-entity.

More 'obesity' agnosticism is only just. 

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

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

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

First, a bit of context,

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

Then he utters the immortal line;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are other people really designed to be your hunger?

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

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

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

All for the desire to control what other people eat.

Bob Attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob representing typical fitness industry ignorance

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

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

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

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

How sneakily our inner needs manifest themselves!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine that.

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

— Bob Harper (@MyTrainerBob) 28 February 2017

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

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

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

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

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

Dog eat dog.

A More Apt Response

Woman "...chops off her own finger with bolt cutters." I beg to differ DM. She cut off the top two joints of her pinkie. Still the fuss about her act of self-mutilation is more than I've seen for the whole of the current drive to remove healthy functioning stomachs merely to facilitate starvation over more extended periods. 

DM calls Ms Pinkie Cutter's act "bizarre". They quote others as saying its 'crazy', 'disgusting, 'stupid'. In the comments she's described as an attention-seeking, substance user, a candidate for sectioning, a disappointment to her mother(aw), [the ubiquitous] narcissist, victim of a childhood head trauma with 'questionable' parents, and a 'sick puppy.

Ms Torz Reynolds-her actual name-indicated that she went with an aesthetic feeling and pronounced herself pleased with the result.

"Healing so well and totally love it!"

Sounds familiar, except the first part would be more a cause for sorrow. Healing tends to signal tapering off of precious weight loss.

Even Ms Pinkie Shears draws the line at seeing healing as a disappointment.

Something of the Occult......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A sub-Frankenstein effort of epic delusion.

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

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

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

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

Freedom of faith is also freedom from faith.

Handling Hatred

The School of Life - On Being Hated

This reminds me a lot of the real issues fat people have with detaching psychologically from the purveyors of fat phobia. It's politically pertinent too. The hatred is not personal to or indicative of you, it is a tool for others to do what they want.

You simply do not have to believe those who sell 'obesity' have any interest in your well being at all. You are not responsible for their mindset. You are not responsible for leading them out of the false consciousness they've built. Your only duty is to yourself. Not because you are not your sister's/brother's keeper, but because you can only help them through helping yourself. 

You can only change them by changing yourself. That may seem hard, but it is more punishing to seek to 'persuade' them than it is to acknowledge yourself and your own experience.

People who would rather cut you, drill holes into you, seek to bend your psyche to increase your tolerance of their imposed pathologies, rather than change the way they think are not to be trusted to act in your best interests, no matter their medical, scientific or social status.

Real Clean Eating

Here's one for the clean eating brigade......Japanese cafe chain apologies for using detergent instead of oil to fry their doughnuts. Now that shows real commitement to dietary cleanliness. And as everyone knows, cleanliness is next to go(o)dliness.

Afternoon Tea...is recalling the affected batch of fried items after customers complained of numbness in their tongues. 

How interesting. Usually the numbness of clean eating centres its affects on undermining cognitive function. Mind you, having a numb tongue could be of assistance. Throughout history, accident has become serendipity, sparking unforeseen human advance. 

Perhaps you can whack some washing powder over the salad leaves you saw at as you would a steak. Wash it down with a shot of washing up liquid, with no feeling it your tongue it could pass as a clean creme de menthe.

Hey, if a person can 'use' food as a drug, then there's no reason detergent cannot be 'used' for food in the same way. As in not.

Wishful Thinking

I sometimes find myself stuck between an appropriate level of offense and a certain pleasure tinged relief at a suppressed truth bursting forth. It all started with Glamour magazine's "Chic at Any Size" edition [see what they did there;-]

Amy Schumer appeared in a list of style inspirations with three other bigger contenders [let's get the body politics right here]. Melissa McCarthy, Adele and Ashley Graham. None of them were Gabourey or her size, so, clearly there were unspoken parameters.

This wasn't enough for AS though, she was offended at the mere possibility of inclusion with, whisper it (fatness). I can't find it in my heart to blame her. I suppose I sorta oughta, but I just feel well, she's just trying to dodge making a rod for her own back. She's the type that's walking a thin line [geddit] with her comedic persona.

No-one wants that kind of fire unless they're mentally prepared for it and she clearly isn't. What I like about it is the way this has exposed the not enough said fact of how many slim people think 'obese' is fatter than it is and more importantly (to them) that they are a lot slimmer than they are. It's about time these illusions were shattered as they're tiresomely intent to insist fatz don't know we're fat.

This kind of thing is called an unforced error in tennis.  All pretence of it not being upsetting enough to be deemed fat is exposed, if only briefly.

Touch.

Schumer alluded to the old, what will young girls (isn't it always) think when they learn someone of her petitehood could be deemed "plus-size"? The extent of wishful thinking involved in "obese crisis" conography, springs to mind. 

This whole rackus is clearly amped up by oddly awol at times 'obese' crusade. When you poison the well of weight the way that insists on, it cannot stay within certain categorization/s. It bleeds out like an oil slick. Of course people are desperate to avoid being in touch distance with such. That however, isn't possible.

It can be easy to lose touch with just how terrified slim people are of anything related 'obese'/fat/overweight etc., They know what's being done to fat people and do not wish to be on the receiving end of any of it. This can be forgotten in the continual pretense of how little jeopardy fat people are in and how the unfailing courteousness of slim people is killing fat people with kindness.

Disorder is the Norm

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

At times you have to accept limits.

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

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

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

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

Becoming a feminist is surely indicative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is what is being exported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find this odd, to say the least.

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

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

Diabetes Trippy

I'm not even going to pretend to care about Rob Kardashian or the rest of his family. I don't get what they are for and I'm as okay with that as I am with others totally getting the point of them. But it seems Rob has got the diabetes.

The fat kind. The naughty, type 2 diabetes. The one you get for being guilty.

The twist here is he's basically a bit of a five minute fatty. Unconvincingly so at that.

According to reports, this man gained over 100lbs in one year. He was also depressed, seemingly hyperphagic and having problems with alcohol.

From my own point of view of no medical expertise whatsoever. I'd say such a cluster of symptoms, along with such ferocious weight gain signalled RK's incipient diabetes. This could be totes wrong of course. That a slim guy decided apropos of nothing to force feed himself, turn down thermogenesis and chub up by a nice round 100lbs (why not 50 or 150?) because erm, "fat logic" is far more plausible.

After choosing to enter "fat logic" whilst slim, he became depressed about it, because he was getting what he planned, yes, that sounds the ob construct mal-logic to me. Never knowingly makes sense and no-one cares because it serves a purpose, nothing of which is to be of use to any fat person whatsoever.

Interestingly enough, he was taken to hospital suffering diabetic ketoacidosis, something most indicative of type1 diabetes, the innocent, unimpeachable kind. Alas for Rob, his problems made him fat, so, the obstacle that is the 'obesity' construct will have to be negotiated.

In my strictly non medical judgement.

The ob construct is increasingly forcing medical segregation by body size. From the nonsense of "obesity-related" to this progressive cleaving of diabetes along weight lines. I'm not entirely surprised to learn that diabetes tends to be the classification for chronically elevated blood sugar. Like others, I'm not particularly convinced that they are related to each other enough to bear the same tag.Though I could not swear against it either.

However the issue here is not about weight, it's about metabolic function and whether the angle we are viewing it from is the most useful or accurate. I didn't get those suspcisions from the good doctor, I've said forever that the term "insulin resistance" has always thrown up a conceptual red flag for me. [I can't help a wry smile when I hear "auto-immune" too.]

In a way, the addition of "leptin resistance" seems to confirm my suspicions about the nature of cross over between type 2 diabetes and weight.

As will be of little surprise to you, Rob has been told his diagnosis, rather than being shock of mortality, a challenge to his personal sense of self, or a potential light bulb moment for what he may well have assumed was wholly "emotional" is simply a "wake up" call for him to stop being fat etc.,Yes, heaven forfend any fellow feeling on the impact of finding out that you have an illness.

"Everyone knows," fat people get ill solely due to the wages of sin, in order to motivate them to an anorexic triumph and the approval of people who think that's an apt response. The criterion for diagnosing diabetes has been lowered to that end. And why not? It is frequently said, that medicine is an art not a science.

RK's apparently off to rehab for the etc., part of which is probably indicative of his underlying condition. The best comment on rehab was made by the late Amy Winehouse. She was much mocked for this, but all she said was the truth, rehab is mostly hot air. Unless you count attention and time away from your normal existence.

That's usually called a holiday. 

Missing METABOLISM arrives when pseudo-science leaves the room

For years, I've been banging on like sister from another planet about weight being all to do with METABOLISM?

METABOLIC ANATOMY

Yes?

All WEIGHT is produced by such. 

And no, that does not refer specifically to disorders of, or disordered metabolic function, it refers correctly functioning metabolism, its anatomy, function, physiology.  Just as referring to the anatomy and physiology of your limbs is assumed to be about said limbs, rather than disorders or diseases that can affect those limbs.

Just as the pathologization of fatness has merged somewhat with physiology of fat bodies, therefore of all bodies, and as it is also conflated with diabetes. Increasingly, metabolism has become suggestive of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance (whatever the latter two especially actually are) and so on.

Nor is it another way of presenting digestion or nutrition.

It is,

The sum of chemical reactions that go in inside your body:a. Metabolism b. catabolism c. anabolism d. canabalism 

Now if this seems all encompassing to the point of becoming indistinct. Science to the rescue. Here's an example of how obvious and easy it can be to grasp the role of metabolic function.

"Taller people more likely to get cancer, say researchers"

Did you dare to dream for a second that I was going to link to something about 'obesity'? Lols. If you can delay gratification no further, give yourself a mental massage by putting weight in place of height, or more specifically, fatter in place of taller.

Here's what stood out,

The creation of height is automatically acknowledged as METABOLIC

.....taller people have a larger number of cells in their body......

Metabolism is in essence, the anatomy, processes and pathways that create maintain and destroy the cells of your body. Weight is just a more active aspect of metabolic function, so it is even more apt that it should be centered around what creates and maintains it. Like hunger though, this erased by 'obesity' promotions inc.

Metabolism is referenced in a very accessible way.

It is gradated for hoi polloi. First mentioning that tall/er people have a greater number of cells. Then onto the processes of the production and growth of those cells, honing in on an active aspect of that- growth hormone.

“We know that in humans growth hormone not only stimulates bone growth during our growing years, but stimulates cell growth in general and blocks cell death. So the level of growth hormone someone has could affect cancer risk by pushing up cell numbers,” 

 My emphasis. Four lines is all it takes.

An earlier study showed that people with genetic dwarfism had very little cancer. “People with genetic dwarfism have a mutation in their growth hormone receptor and we know that growth hormone and growth hormone receptor are critical to tumour growth too,” he said."

A study on mice where their genes were manipulated to make a high or low level of growth hormone was said to increase and decrease their cancer rates accordingly. Which brings me to another fundamental point.

Height is easily acknowledged as a SCALE

Each end of any scale informs understanding of either by comparison and all in between. "From 100cm (3ft 3ins -225cm 7ft 6ins)", one scale produced by the same anatomical processes. The shortest i.e. dwarfism automatically informs the taller end. Weight is the same, the thinnest informs the fattest and vice versa. Segregated focus creates an obstacle. There are bound to some at one end and some at the other.

Immediate and repeated reassurance

Taller men and women need not worry.

Swedish study sheds new light on link between height and disease – but smoking, obesity and poor diet are still greater risks

Indeed they need not. That would only do them harm. Don't be put off by the usual false equivalence. The point is to note is the keen desire to avoid upsetting tall/er people.

It's clear about the source and quality of the information.

despite taller men and women being more likely to develop cancer, according to this study of 5.5 million people born between 1938 and 1991

No declaration of "proof" from a dozen people. No confounding factors were included in the study, so how good this is, may be up for some question. That's made clear. If you are making emphatic claims, quality is requisite. 

Tallness is not framed as some abnormal growth happening to a 'normal' body

a) That is the construct that is 'obesity' and b) Tallness could lend itself just as well to such a faux pas, or not.

No false moralism is invoked

I include concern trolling about "stigma". The real and apt sense of morality is in the reverence for any potential impact of this news on tall/er people. This sense of potential consequence is very humanistic. Despite mentioning "higher energy intake" they go out of their way not to mention food showing how pronounced that obsession is elsewhere.

It is possible to mention higher intake without invoking that great meter of objective diagnosis- the 7 deadly sins. 

Perhaps the acme of this for me is,

The current state of knowledge is freely acknowledged along with the need for MORE RESEARCH 

And of what kind.

“The mechanisms for this effect are not clear and are worth further study. They may relate to the fact that the growth hormones related to height also are in some way stimulating cancer cells, but details are lacking.”

Not junk science such as increased risk according to your bedtime, but not hours sleep. WTH? Obviously not designed to be of any use. Except to those getting paid [well done].

The findings are properly contextualized.

Dr Jane Green, clinical epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, said: “In general, I would caution against interpreting a link as causal – however for height and cancer there is considerable evidence that suggests that the link is not explained by other known factors.

Context also lends itself to pacifying potential anxieties. Special mention to,

No problem with paradox

“......it is worth noting that taller people have lower risks for heart disease and a lower risk of death overall."

Paradox is often a fundamental part of reality fact and truth-it doesn't require special categorization.

The effort to jettison potential false causality

Clearly, adult height is not itself a ‘cause’ of cancer, but is thought to be a marker for other factors related to childhood growth.

Rather than the use of this to continue pathologization. Nor is there any pretense that a generalized catch all risk relates the same to each individual-innumerate as much as anything. 

just because a woman is tall, doesn’t mean they will definitely develop breast cancer,” said Carolyn Rogers, clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care.

For the record,

“We must stress that the biggest risk factors for developing breast cancer are being female, getting older and for some, a significant family history of the disease.”

This is pretty much how I see weight. It is 'obesity' that is deviance from basic rational standards. It doesn't take genius to work out that the absence of the above standards are malicious in intent.

You hopeless addict you

Well wouldn't you know. After years, of slowly being forced to get off the anorexia/'obesity' train, 'obesity' cultists are going with this angle. We're still disease, sick, unsane objects with nothing to say nor sentience to consult, but, wait for it, we're hopeless addicts who can't help it! Good-o, that's a step up socially isn't it? Everyone with an acceptable body wants to be addicted to something, so, we must be jonesing for that too right?

Altogether with your fake pity, awwwwwww.

Here's why Monbiot et al are sticking with the 'obesity' spiel,

The crucial task is to reach children before they succumb to this addiction. As well as help and advice for parents, this surely requires a major change in what scientists call “the obesogenic environment” (high energy foods and drinks and the advertising and packaging that reinforces their attraction). Unless children are steered away from overeating from the beginning, they are likely to be trapped for life.

Yep, it's all about the control, in this case of big business via what folks think can be turned into the softest target, the food industry. Getting your own way, not through persuasion, you feel your ideas are that attractive. But via stealth, through unguarded borders [so topical.]

Whether its greens/leftists or whatever he is like GM who wish to use fat people as a pathway to checking capitalism/big biz, or rightists like those he critiques. David Cameron and his mate Dame Carol Black, who wish to use fat people as a way of forcing people into the kind of punitiveness, rightists find so emotionally satisfying, no matter how costly, self defeating and oh erm, immoral it is.

Monbiot's whole farticle is as pitiful as to be expected, but even he excels himself for sheer pissweak attempts at unfelt "sympathy". Read the whole thing as its a study in it, but I think this takes the yam (no cake) for sheer bottom feeding cringe worthiness,

It causes a range of hideous conditions, just one of which – diabetes – accounts for one sixth of NHS admissions and 10% of its budget. In what looking-glass world is this acceptable? If smoking demands fierce intervention, why not overeating?

Hideous I tell thee! Worse even than wearing last season's three-quarter length trews!!!! The answer to the emphasized question is of course, when folks of your kith and kin want to get their own way. I said 'obesity' wallahs are happy for you to sicken and die as long as you're happy to accept this is okay. People can see it, but there's a step between seeing and believing.

That includes fat activists, singing about social justice, but saying little about being openly told either you diet or you die. The unacceptability of that does not hang on the 'healthiness' or otherwise of fatness. The PTB don't do it out of hate, it's how they roll, how else are they going to get you to do their bidding without these shenanigans?

No-one should be told, you are ill, and are dying and that's okay, unless you can do only this (useless), punitive thing. Think of the subliminal message. It's never been acceptable and that it goes largely unchallenged has in itself degraded fat people and encouraged an abusive attitude towards us. That it is said at all is reflective of such also.

Neither of course is a fuck you, prevention only any better, that's primitive in its barbarism. How can you value or respect anyone who its openly acceptable to give up on? I say openly, as that has always been implicit.

Do some of you now see why "sympathy" is hogwash? Isn't this crapulence (simulating) "sympathetic"? I've always hated this assertion that what I used to call "professional sympathy" is some kind of panacea for anything.What is required is fat people to value ourselves and truth. Fact, objective testable understanding of how our bodies work, or science as we still manage to call it.

I hope some of you sentimentalists are seeing that there's nothing more sympathetic than a desire to understand, genuine science is deemed progressive largely for that reason.

But even that is not going to come without direct intervention from those who desire or are capable of it. 

Therein contains a serious point though. The [prospective] ill health of fat people is being used as a lever for others to get their own [political/social] way. In the case of the right, it's undermining consent/ imposing punitive no strictures, no matter how useless or pointless. That satisfies something deep within them.

No wonder there's been such extraordinary apathy on the part of dealing with most things deemed "obesity associated." Usually, if there's a problem associated with any issue, genuine suggestions of how to deal with them flow.

Years before fatsphere, I expected there to be 'obesity' physiotherapy to come into being at any second, that's why I virtually had a thoughtgasm, when I heard of HAES. That was what amateurs [and truly humane professionals] created in lieu of being left for their bodies to go where they may. Time after time, I've stumbled over ways of dealing with things 'associated' with fatness, that obviously occur in slim people, where there are ideas and advice available, that are rarely heard in context of 'obesity.'  It's all, point out how fat people are doomed, stand back willing it to happen.

I said myself, that if I hadn't searched for alternative ways to restore some well being, I'd never have stumbled over a way to quell a rampaging hunger disorder, one very much provoked by calorie restriction.

Suffice to say, fatness is not diseasiness. Weight, no matter what, is an outcome of metabolic function and no doubt can be adjusted, altered at some point there. And yes, calorie restriction is useless for everybody in the end. The issue here is not that it's impossible to change weight properly and permanently, but that the wrong target is being used to alter it. That's way too simple for all this nonsense to carry on.

Now we can see the determination to be wrong is really about continuing to make use of fat people as a means to an end, rather our health and what can be stolen from it.

The only way round this is for fat people to get involved in the area of metabolic function and weight. And literally elbow out this mentality for good. I go back to what I said at the beginning of my fatsphere sojourn-These people (obesity wallahs) are not going to stop themselves, they have to be stopped.

Even I didn't know how quite how right that was and why. 

Useful Humiliation

During one of the recent tawdry non-discussions about 'obesity' from the anorexia worshiping classes, humiliation was proclaimed a time honoured technique to control unwanted elements and that it actually works.

And indeed it does. It clearly worked to suppress gayness. Which illustrates the point, the ends don't justify the means.

It's an often heard cry from fat activists that bullying and stigma don't work. This is of course untrue, they did. It's what people were being bullied into sticking with that didn't. Fat people willingly participated in dieting. Like everyone else we thought it would work.

Fat people started off dieting with crusaders zeal. We had no reason to doubt. Whether we were put on diets as children, many of us, or chose to in childhood like myself to, as often our first masterplan of continued self will.

Though they don't necessarily state it clearly, religious fundamentalists are aware that being gay is a pronounced, unconsciously directed orientation. They didn't care either about the damage repressing people into self repression and staying their does.

They too wish/ed to punish gay people for being gay.

Punishment is a powerful urge, when it is allowed to lead it will overturn into compulsion. It will become the end.  Ditto humiliation.

Yes, it's probably the case that humiliation can reset a person's ability to stick with starving themselves for longer, or any other action they're body is fighting. But dieting is inherently undesirable and goes nowhere.

If everyone's so desperate to reduce anyone's eating, whether normal or not, then humiliation should be scientifically tested. The right kind should be clearly identified and the ability to provoke it should be exact, repeated over and over, to get the same results in experiments.

Of course humiliation is unlikely to stand up to such disciplined inquiry, assuming it was ethically permitted. But if even if it did, you know what? I'd still say shelve it. 

It takes a hell of a lot of effort to be an 'obese'

Celebrity response to fat phobia are something I've never been invested in. Overwhelmingly, no matter how honest and positive they can be at any one moment about being human whilst fat. They'll likely be examples of them being otherwise.

Millican once make one of those execrable paedo [fat] phobe remarks about a fat boy's chest being more greatly endowed than hers. Word to the wise, never again.

I don't feel 'betrayed' by weight reversals, along with the societal pressure on everyone, the business they're in but more importantly the fact that they tend to become wealthier if not outright rich makes that pretty much an inevitability at some point-to whatever degree/time frame or other.

Mindy Kaling on wasting energy merely to remain 'normal'/chubby  

Overall, Kaling has a pretty much mainstream attitude to weight. The specific point she's making seems to me to be refutating the default brainwart that if you are anything above thin-you don't engage in calories in/out style wasting. Though the context it was said in was fat =bad. Ragen felt it was a good fatty thing [I'll get onto that later].

As some of us can see, such is the bankrupt dysfunctional inefficiency of wasting energy to supposedly regulate/ lose weight-or "weight-management" cannot reliably be expected to consistently/ permanently reverse anyone's weight, no matter their starting point. It's not an 'obese' thing as is being sold by 'obesity' quacksters and restriction diet shills. 

Common or garden "working out" and having a healthy or restrictive diet leaves most people above thin remaining pretty much where they are, give or take and those who are thin do not have to take breaks because they're dematerializing.

In fact, many of them start to gain bulk from the former, for the first time. Part of the so called "French secret" and why you don't see as many of the size that is being sized-out for being small as you did pre 'fitness culture.'

I've always wished women would come out of the closet and own up to how much cals in/out they actually practise. Regardless of weight. It might make it make more sense for fat people to say what they do also. And what some don't. Because fat people are not a monolith.

Oh!Bese etc., is convenient fiction.

Some fat people do as much as slimmer people who say they "do nothing" or do lots-the latter possibly cut down on activity elsewhere too-who knows? Polarity of slim/fat is false. Fat people vary as does everyone. The more people speak honestly, being widely varied in habits and approved effort, at the same or similar weights the better.

If that's "confusing" tough.

Fat people haven't just dieted in ways that could make honest people weep. We've also expended and suppressed a tremendous amount of energy play dehumanizing dis-ease-which of course you have to blunt yourself with insult to achieve said effect. There's having to suppress your most basic critical faculties and ultimately intelligence-to repeat the same folly over and over, expecting some other outcome as well as "fitness" and dietary restriction.

It takes most effort of all to be an 'obese' its draining and unrewarding for the effort expended. Which is of course roundly denied by all and sundry.

Often led by the fat person most of all.

Talk Yourself Down

I was reminded of this when someone posted about something similar on another blog. They'd seen a report of a study that claimed those who'd been sexually abused were three times more likely to be fat by the age of 27 than those who hadn't. This refers to some kind of PTSD. PTSD is when your nervous system keeps reverberating with a traumatic event, or set of traumatic events causing  replays of said incident/s to continue on a self sustaining loop. It's also used for when the same cause your nervous system to enter into a state of hyper-reactivity which can be ever present or be activated under duress.

The person struggled with the fact that no mention was made of counselling for distress. It was all, how can we prevent this high risk group from becoming 'obese'. She was shocked by this, but it was inevitable. I called this the "nothing's going on but your fat" line of 'obesity'.

This from the emeritus professor of counselling;

(Dalgliesh mentions some research that found a third of obese women had been sexually abused.) "They haven't learned how to self-soothe, how to talk themselves down, 

"Talk yourself down" is interesting. It basically means that to recover from sexual abuse, you need may need to get your nervous system out of a PTSD hyperactive state. 

Only, she doesn't say that. She says fat women have failed to respond correctly to being sexually abused. Here's perhaps another reference to a hyperactive nervous system from a different angle;

“This.....may be due in part to maladaptive stress responses within this group, including heightened low-grade inflammation and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) non-habituation.” 

"Maladaptive stress responses." Now the thing is not all fat people have been sexually abused. Indeed, despite these reports, there's been evidence to the contrary, that fat women are no more sexually abused than their slimmer counterparts.

And this study is too small to make conclusions. Except to say the 'obese' mugging is itself is prone to leaving the nervous system shaken and stirred, it's part of its motivation or perish strategy. You're supposed to escape not being fat, but the treatment you receive whilst being fat- or decline in health under its assault.

It's always been a source of fascination as to how long medical authorities will persist/ get away with in a traumatizing strategy-for health. Right now they seem to be trying to slide into their old tricks attempting to ride two horses at once, by leaving the hate up to the social opprobrium they're still directly winding up. And then posing unconvincingly in their benign authority pose.

Of course, how you respond to sexual assault is not usually deemed a matter of success or failure. Assigning failure and fault to what is not necessarily a consciously led activity just shows how difficult it is to speak properly to a disease. For those lecturing on fatuous notions of 'addiction' how could people whose profession is health have allowed themselves to sink to this level? And this particular women wasn't even trying to hostile!

Whether fat people have or tend to have more reactive nervous systems or not, why isn't that addressed directly anyway? Always this suggestiveness without content. Content can be examined and tested.

Not only could techniques to calm the nervous system help all fat people, it could help all who have experienced sexual assault and many who have PTSD, including ex-military. That might actually make some of this seem almost worthwhile. If some good could come out of this mess.

'Obesity' wallahs continually forget how much we all gain from understanding the care of others, based on a genuinely to help. Something conspiciously missing in action in their case.