On Holliday Again

Here we go with the Tess Holliday Cosmo cover. The breakfast show panel consists of; the editor of the UK edition, Farrah Storr, co-hosts Susanna Reid and Piers Morgan, plus actress Tina Malone who was formerly 172lbs/78kgs heavier before having a gastrectomy [she was previously in the original "Shameless".]

The ahem "discussion" was pretty much as you'd expect. I can't be arsed to go into the ins and outs of it in minute detail, but basically, Morgan objected to TH being treated as a person, and not turned into any kind of cautionary tale, with no invasive warnings issued. He claimed this was not "responsible".

Storr was constantly put in the position of being goaded into accepting or denying "this isn't a healthy weight". Which is exactly what we are all supposed to do, assume our predestined positions, rather than ask what the heck is stopping scientists from finding out how to alter metabolic function. And why if its such an emergency, they are so languid about anything bar directly inciting this kind of to and fro, along with other theatrics of irrelevance.

In the meantime, they set about pretending to be a voice of "anti-stigma" and reason when they are the instigators and maintainers of a situation that likely wouldn't be happening if not for the interventions to block genuine progress.

'Obesity' cultists set all the terms, we know this because in the end, 'obesity' is their construct. Despite proclaiming a state of peril, any instinct to query the state of scientific enquiry and its lack of delivery is typically absent. As long as that is the case, 'obesity' promoters will settle for this, its a win for them.

[GMB discussing w/e 'obesity' peddlers tell them to]

As long as we are kept busy going at each other, we'll continue not to notice this, which is the object. 

What you'll also notice, if you need reminding is there is no difference between 'obesity' and a person. None. 

The person is the pathology, and the dis-ease is the person, and that is pretty much taken for granted by at least half the panel. At one point Malone referred to "embracing it" [her body] as the same as embracing a bottle of vodka or drugs. 

The historical precedent for defining people as disease is as a prelude to violence and genocide. As far as I know, it has no prior use as a health aid.

 

Fat Feet

Or, ya feets too big.

Person A: "What do you want to study?"

Person B: "Fat feet".

Person A: "Don't you mean feet?"

Person B: "No, fat feet".

Person A: "Podiatry?"

Person B: "Fat feet".

Person A: "If fat feet is not simply feet that are bigger, how do you define fat feet?"

Person B: "When feet are above a certain size, it becomes a disease we call fat feetishness."

Person A: "But surely that just refers to feet that are fatter?"

Person B: "There are feet and then there are feet above a certain index of mass."

Person A: "Surely all feet produce their mass using the same anatomical processes? Pathologising feet on the basis of size would mean a person who has bigger feet no longer has feet, they have a disease instead?"

Person B: *Crickets*

Many years later......

Person B: "They're a person with fat feet."

Person A: *Yawn* "How does that differ from a person's feet?"

Person B: "The WHO, the AMA, the DSMV and other authoritative bodies all agree fat feet is a thing."

Person A: "Do you wish to study fat feet to find the most efficient means to stop feet getting above a certain size?"

Person B: "The priority is to overwhelm with evidence of how bad fat feet is."

Person A: "What will that do?"

Person B: "It's the only way"

Person A: "To achieve what?"

Person B: "It's obvious!"
 
Person A: "I still don't get why don't just study the anatomy and physiology of the human foot and work out the easiest way to nudge the physiological function of feet into stopping at an acceptable size. It's a question of mechanics of biology surely." 

Person B: "I don't think you understand how bad fat feet is. You seem to be enabling fat feet, because you are; addicted, disordered, not feeling your emotions, sexually abused..... You need treatment, therapy, education, pity, taxation, advice, sanction, support..."

Person A, (again): "I promise you fat feet are just feet that are bigger, they're feet just the same as any other, just the same size. Seriously, podiatry has not [yet] announced that it has broken away from any particular size of feet."

The Size of You

An enjoyable article on Substantia Jones and her Adipositivity Project in New Zealand made me consider a subtle difference in attitude to weight and identity. 

I'm glad she said that she wished to "demystify" fat bodies. I'm bored of others, especially the fat hating sisterhood, insisting TAP etc., are trying to force others to find fat people beautiful. Assuming they're covering their bitching with snooty sub-lectures about how they've appointed us miners of digging for women's value beyond beauty. As if they've they're too gorgeous for that.

Give. Me. Strength. 

We've already been forced to find slim people beautiful or else, regardless. I'll have more time for this noise when it finds injustice in that. Not that pretending slim=beauty keeps me awake at night, just that slim people need to learn that the complaints they aim at fat people are usually more apt commentary on their own unresolved issues-such as this. Clearly slimz are contemptuous of their own demands. The consistency of this doesn't bode well for self-acceptance.

When SJ was young, she was thin/slim, as a child she said she was nicknamed "bones". Later;

"I liked being thin. I freaked out about my body changing, and I started dieting very young."

Indicative of many if not most thin/slim people;

As she went on one diet after another, her weight yo-yoed. It was only when she embraced her fat body that Jones actually felt happy with herself.

Ummm, "fat body".

Of the Adipositivity Project she says,

"The primary goal is that I want people to love and respect their bodies."

"Their bodies" is right. 

Both fat body and their bodies reference the same thing........at the same time, there can be a subtle difference between embracing yourself and your fatness as part of that. And embracing fatness as a defining characteristic of yourself. It means something to be aware of what you are signing on for when weight becomes you.

I never have any desire anymore to be thin. It wouldn't be me."

It's all in those last four words (the prior sentence is quoted for context). I'm not trying to catch SJ out or nitpick. Many people aim toward this. I'm querying the urge to identify indubitably with weight, whether thin or fat. Your weight is not you.

You are yourself, your size is an aspect of that. 

SJ is no more inherently fat than she was inherently thin, what remained constant was herself. Same person, same life, same body-different stages, different sizes. That's how the body is. It changes. It adapts.

The point of FA is all bodies all people are always human. Always valuable, always the body you are going to do anything with.What is precious is you, not your girth. I honestly think that's what we are all avoiding.

Whatever your size, check your response to the reality that you are the value not your slimness or your valuation of fatness.

Before we plunge into defining ourselves as must-be-fat, we need to look at the mess of a crusade given life by must-be-slim and humbly ask ourselves why we'll make a better fist of weight as identity than slim people. What have we got that they haven't?

It's not the whole story, but if so many slim people did not struggle with the idea of not being slim, we would never have gotten in this mess.

Yes, if SJ woke up tomorrow as slim as she used to be, it might well be incredibly disconcerting, but you know what? She's already gotten over a far greater shock-the loss of a weight halo. She wouldn't stop being herself, even if it altered her character. She'd get over it, or get over not getting over it, same as any change.

As important as it is to value and as she says, demystify fat bodies, until we (re-)learn to really possess our thoughts, our perceptions our sentience, autonomy, agency, narratives and experience, size will not be enough.

Saving Money

Alcoholism like many other dependencies/compulsions is susceptibility + exposure. Some have a heightened susceptibility;

They had a nip, and then another. “It tasted horrible,” Blaise recalls. “But something clicked. I suddenly felt relaxed and at peace.

Samuel Blaise on his first experience with alcohol whilst bunking off with a school friend aged 12.

Others have greater exposure before their system succumbs.

Given alcohol genuinely exacts a toll in terms of healthcare costs, human misery and other social costs, you'd think any prospect of effective treatment for alcoholism would be leapt at by those in healthcare. You'd not be correct in that perfectly reasonable assumption though. The authorities dragged their feet despite lobbying from organisations representing former alcoholics. Plus;

...the backlash from the detox industry was swift and ferocious. There was also pushback from some members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), which he says promotes a culture of total abstinence.

That goes even deeper,

“They function like a church.......suddenly, scientists arrive with a medication and rationally explain that a biological issue can be fixed. Suddenly, you don’t need abstinence, you don’t need a higher being. The very basis of the church comes crashing with it.”

Yeah, suddenly science.

Blaise says that while he greatly respects members, he has heard a sentiment akin to “you don’t deserve to be cured” from the AA crowd. This makes sense, he says, because to be in a constant state of craving is unthinkably hard. “You need to be at war with yourself to remain sober, minute after minute, day after day. AA people spend years, or even decades before they finally reach a state of indifference towards booze, whereas those of us who take Baclofen have to fight a mere few weeks.”

And there we have it. When a pathology is or is perceived to be caused/triggered by consumption it often becomes a vehicle for morality, like sports or art is for others. The people who go in for this cannot accept their own irrationality, so they cloak their urges in rationale calling it "debate" using (pseudo)science terms. This infestation by moralitis shuts down science due to it nurturing the urge to hold the quarry's feet to the fire. That fire being a fight with the unbearable.

I underlined that part becuase people are still resisting the observation that the desire is not to cure, it is to force them to be subject to the distress and pain of battling with their own bodies. To be imprisoned in their own selves.

In this case - the craving is for alcohol. If the moralists are able to get a hold of things, they pretend nothing is everything and the cure. That nothing being abstinence, which is literally not-a-thing. It's, "Stop drinking", ignoring that the very inability to stop- defines alcoholism.

Nothing predictably fails to work, which has to be the target's fault. It's their addiction, illness etc., and the aforementioned battle becomes the person's permanent state. They are deemed a "recovering" alcoholic etc.,  When really, that -ing indicates continuation of the problem. The evidence of it is the very craving that torments. Those sodden with guilt are persuaded this is somehow their penance for ever having the nerve to be susceptible to alcoholism.

It is "self-inflicted"

"Recovery" of this sort is merely the establishment of incompetence as the standard-in place of actual treatment, remedy or cure. Thus the appearance of doing something, whilst doing nothing is maintained.

In essence alcoholism is the template for phony baloney 'obesity' pseudo-science. With the same pretence of declaring 'disease', it seeks to set fat people up with a fight with hunger. No matter the cost.

Baclofen the drug in question is not without its problems, to put it mildly, however, the pursuit of real remedy means perhaps other genuine remedies for the horror that alcoholism will be found. Undoubtedly better than the falsely moralized degeneracy we have now.

Where people are permitted to die slowly, with a weeping chorus of loved ones strewn around, because the compulsion to lock people into futile battles with internal biochemical imbalance is allowed its head.

Caring saves lives and ££££'s people.

Real Medicine

My attention was drawn to the story of Abdul Jabbar Tunio. He is a Pakistani vegetable seller who's been felled by a haywire metabolism. This has produced aggressive weight gain over the last 20 or so years of his life. Matters have come to a head and he is currently in intensive care having reached 42 and a half stones /595lbs/270 kgs.

Due to the factors that have produced this gain, Tunio has gone from being immobile over the last few months to a state of semi-consciousness.

What's quietly compelling about his story is the entirely sane, honest and apt responses of everyone concerned. His family are genuinely grief-stricken and have searched vainly over the last few months for means to remedy his condition.

Jabbar’s brother, Abdul Haleem Tunio, and his nephew stare at his body, lying in a bed in the ICU, with heavy hearts. “Jabbar has been unable to drink, eat or talk since the day he arrived at the hospital on Tuesday,” Haleem told The Express Tribune with tearful eyes.

They did not see him as just a "shut-in" or someone getting what he deserves. A political representative got involved and acted in a perfectly straight-forward way;

The 39-year-old patient suffering from morbid obesity was brought from Larkana to the JPMC on Tuesday on the direction of Pakistan Peoples Party chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

[My emphasis.]

The response of the medical professionals has been what you'd expect from people who've trained for years to heal the sick.Though unsure what do, they are "trying hard to stabilise him". Guided by basic medical protocol. The lead doctor- Javed Jamali described him as "suffering from a rare medical condition".

Even the health minister got involved;

[The] health minister Dr Sikandar Mandhro also visited the patient on Wednesday and directed the hospital administration to constitute a medical board for Jabbar’s treatment.

That medical board will consist of,

....a general physician, general surgeon, nephrologist and chest physician to investigate the cause of the weight gain.

Medics, not dieticians, nutritionists, psychologists, social workers, but specialist medical professionals.

They did not have the means to accommodate his body, so,

According to Dr Jamali, they have ordered a made-to-order bed and mattress for Jabbar.

No whining and whingeing about the awful inconvenience of a very sick man, being brought to a place to treat illness and injury.

Now, not being aware of any back story, I've no idea if there's more to this than meets the eye, but in a way, that's kind of irrelevant as what rings true is the attitude of all concerned. They are reacting to someone who's sick.

I could barely find one bum note in any of the responses reported. Even the journalists talk of his "bloated body" though unnecessary, in such a rational context, it doesn't attain any edge. Talk of 'obesity' only troubles in the sense that it may get in the way of the mission. The only time I briefly snorted was when at an earlier hospital, the family was told he could only be treated at a prestigious big city hospital or abroad.

It's comparatively easy to keep pointing out that the foul idiocy that passes for a response to weight in the West has been deliberately engineered by a crusade involving health bureaucrats, researchers and medical professionals. It is quite another to see it this clearly by getting a sense of how it would look in the absence of such. Imagine all that could have been achieved.

We're currently at the point where some are trying to deny medical treatment and others are busily trying to engage in mass stomach removal. We are at that point because we chose to be and want to be here. People want to go along with excluding others from medical treatment.

It's a regressive backlash, the indulgence feeling we are too spoilt and need to feel life red in tooth and claw. That somehow it is immoral to attempt to avoid meaningless suffering and abuse.

It's worth noting Pakistan is a Muslim country, purported by crackpots to be a medieval throwback in modern times. Ironically, a lot of those types love the 'obesity' crusade and howl when it is challenged even though that's mostly weak and on terms dictated by it.

Imprisoning millions in a pathological and incompetence outlook will generate little but cost. If answers are found for Mr Tunio that will serve and/or inform others. Bigotry costs. Quackery costs. Mutilation costs. Mal intent costs. Regression costs.

Real progress saves more than lives. But people want it to generate costs to fulfil the idea of pricing individuals like cattle.

I'm sure many can see this now, but its still worth having a clear idea in your mind of how things could have been and still could be if people committed unequivocally to ending any collusion with such. I hope Pakistan can keep this up, they might even stumble over some real answers.

'Obesity' crusade degeneracy is the real contagion I find. People who start off with something like this level of decency can with enough effort by the influential, be turned into the sour hate fuelled trolls, we know and are bored by. 

A small detail. Mr Tunio's metabolic problems started when he was 18 and broke his leg.

Breaking a bone is a big shock to your whole body. It's normal for you to receive strong messages from parts of your body that aren't anywhere close to the fracture.

This reminds me of the late rapper Biggie Smalls,

He'd always been a somewhat husky kid, but at age ten he fell off a city bus and broke his right leg in three places..... His leg was in a cast for six months. Laid up in the house with nothing better to do, he ate, putting on pounds that stuck around long after his leg healed.

Along with a small but consist number of examples of people's metabolic derangement either starting with or being taken to a new accelerated level of aggression after breaking legs-other bones too, but given they're our biggest limbs....

Trauma, disrupted signals flying about, inflammation, could well surge through the system, setting this kind of gain in motion. In the West attention is fixated on increased intake of food or alcohol, but it should be relatively obvious that is an increased demand for energy.

Perhaps the need for healing and to make new cells is amplified excessively and that is added to the abundance of signalling.

The aim should be to calm that response as much as possible. One thing to try would be to calm the (nervous) system down overall, leaving the signalling needed for rebuilding to go on with less background noise.

It might be worth investigating teaching people techniques that relax their minds with meditation and from head to toe with something like guided relaxation, whilst their limbs are repairing. It's sometimes called guided relaxation.

That would be good for everyone, to relieve stress and aid healing. Experiments shouldn't be too hard to set up in hospital and with follow through in outpatient clinics. Something like this might prevent those who have this effect from getting to this stage in the first place.

I wish Mr. Tunio a speedy recovery.

Toytown Emperors

Shaw Sommers, a bariatric surgeon *eyebrow raise* has taken an opportunity to drum up some coin for his organ removal business. The occasion is an announcement by an NHS overseeing body called a CCG-Clinical Commissioning Group, that they wish to delay elective surgeries for those with a body mass of 30 or above.

The Vale of York to be precise has decided to put fat/ter people on probation for a year or however long it takes them to starve off 10% of their body mass-whichever period comes around first. No reports on what will happen to their organ amputation provision.

The excuse for this obvious attempt to leverage pain to bully people into starvation induced weight loss is excused as the; "best way of achieving maximum value from the limited resources available”. Oh go on Vale of York, we so believe you!

Sommers is quoted as saying this is like discriminating on the basis of their colour or religious persuasion, as wait for it, "obesity is an illness". We all know that's false, the AMA openly they were saying that to get paid.

This is nothing like racism. The discrimination is that anybody no matter their weight has to lose it via a pathological and ineffective means the body is designed to reject. This isn't acknowledged. Worse still it disregards patient consent, which is fundamental to the practise of medicine. 

Even if you are one of those invested in delusion about the efficacy of calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL, you've still got the fact that much injury and illness is just as much the "fault" of the individual as fat is supposed to be, especially if you apply the same standard of judgement as used for 'obesity'. 

Whether its people injuring themselves to people having accidents-one that springs to mind was a wheelchair user who injured several of her friends, doing lasting damage and ended in being a quadriplegic through their own careless driving.

Self inflicted is an irrelevant concept in medicine. Or it was until 'obesity' became a verbal tic.

The urge toward deserving and undeserving unwell is as bigger bunk as is possible to imagine. Things you wouldn't dream of require far less effort to manage or even resolve than fighting your body's endless defences against calorie restriction. It would, will be a surrprise to us as biology hacks get more sophisticated, just how much we can do for ourselves.

The estimate amount of pscycho somatic illness would shock people.

That's the real discrimination against fat people and in this case smokers two very easy targets. It just so happens that both have vociferous cults aimed at them. Weight is especially bad. I don't wish to throw smokers under the bus, but there is no comparison between not lighting up and inhaling tubers of tobacco and fighting your body's survival instincts. Though I daresay many of them wouldn't see it that way.

CCG's are;

Led by an elected Governing Body made up of GPs, other clinicians including a nurse and a secondary care consultant, and lay members;

Um hum.

In keeping with that Summers isn't even against this punishment fandango, oh heavens to Murgatroyd no;

Shaw Somers, a bariatric surgeon from Portsmouth, said the move was a logical step and could save money, but amounted to discrimination because obesity was an illness.

A "logical step" huh? So would using racial religious discrimination to ration medical treatment be "logical" then? That would make the medical principle of treatment according to need, "illogical." Yet, no other criterion would appear to make more sense.

Then comes the laughable shilling,

“Just saying you can’t have surgery and there is no access to alternative treatments really doesn’t help anyone.”

"Alternative treatments" is reference to his bowdlerising chop socky or some other ghastly item on the iatrogenic 'obesity' repertoire. Neither alternative nor treatment. The sympathy pose is big right now with the 'obesity' promoters.

Sadly for them, cutting out people's organs isn't remotely sympathetic at all.

There's no question something has gone badly awry with certain elements of the medical profession's psyche. A feeling has grown that any action they may disapprove of-real or imagined-undoes their hard work and those who do deserve to be left in agony or death - serve them right. 

They consider medical training to have given them the power of life or death over others.

I personally couldn't care less. I'd just wish to remind them their practise is a monopoly. That fact has served them very well. It is over the moment they consider themselves too grand to treat anyone on the basis of their irrelevant prejudice.

Update: Vale of York is backpeddling;

Major surgery poses much higher risks for severely overweight patients who smoke. So local GP-led clinical commissioning groups are entirely right to ensure these patients first get support to lose weight and try and stop smoking before their hip or knee operation.

"Severely overweight patients who smoke" Really V of Y? You said BMI 30 + and smokers, don't try and fib, its in writing.

The With Slims

People can be so bitchy. In order to avoid bad form, take care with your terms.

Just because people around you talk crudely of 'slim people', doesn't mean you have to stoop to their level. That doesn't make it okay.

In order to be a kind and nice person, call 'slim people', people with slim-PWS. They are people first, you remember that.

Calling folks 'slim people' degrades their humanity. The fact of their slimness isn't more important than their personhood. They are more than just slim. They are people with lives, jobs and a feisty attitude you wouldn't believe. 

They are special, they are normal. Some of them are freaky, but we won't let on. Slim people are not what people say they are. They are good peopole, living with slim, and I really think they deserve some respect for that.

So please, if you see a with slim, be sure to help them out, whether they ask you for it or not.

And if you're a slim person reading this, never forget: You have slim, you are not slim.

Real Before and After

Ashleigh Shackleford's two-fingers at the "before" and "after" meme reminded me of the mis-directed desire to display the shift from surrender to the 'obese' construct to embracing your being.

Instead of pretending fatness is a choice, when it rarely is.

This is a better way.

There needs to be more disrupting of before and after. I'd like to see one with a fat person looking really miserable, hangdog in dowdy ratty clothes as "before" self acceptance. Then an "after" of them feeling better, either in the same clothes or ones that reflect change.

They don't have to smile, just reflect the internal shift. From puppet, to agent, from ventriloquist dummy to fully alive.

We're so caught up in viewing ourselves from the outside/in, a volatile position that lends itself to tumbling into the momentum of neurotic disorder, that we forget just how much we can see of a profound internal shift within from the outside. Our perceptions are and can be even more subtle. This in itself could become a visual antidote to framing outer tinkering as some kind of spiritual shift.

I watched a programme about a cosmetic surgery clinic and the owner said it was purely about psychology. In other words, it's all about changing the way a person feels inside.

It doesn't have to be two pictures. It could be before, during and after!! Could be a whole strip of images reflecting an internal shift in theme, reflecting the fact that life isn't one/two, a pretence of happy ever after revealed in public, unravelling in private, but a continuous stream-of-consciousness.

Expect all to be appropriated by diet shills though.

Obese Extremist

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

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

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

• Obese executioner
• Obese extremist
• Mammoth Extremist

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

I stand corrected.

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

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

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

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

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

How extraordinary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This maniac is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV Cooks on the Rampage

What the everloving heck, cooks on the rampage? First some guy called Alton Brown who's rather late and therefore false in claiming that if the US succumbs to the idea that chucking calories down your neck=disease, it will signal the end of the republic as a cultural entity.

Though reports differ, the AMA declared alcoholism a disease in 1959 that's only 55 years ago, so Brown needs more time to take in the implications. He's perhaps a historian. One can say many things about the US but it appears to have weathered that storm. Clearly he knows little about either civilization or the US.

I can agree with him though that this was bunk, as is the same lie about weight. Both were/are more about siphoning health insurance $$$$'s than anything else, note he doesn't bother mentioning this genesis. Haters often don't. How many times have you heard "FGS medical profession/scientists don't call 'obesity' disease!"?

Though wiser among them have stopped trying to pretend that came from fat people [I wouldn't]. On the whole fatz don't give a sweaty armpit for that. Makes me proud.

Then there's Jamie Oliver, wait, I can't hate. Oliver is more pathetic than he is tiresome, though he is undoubtedly that with his construct related blunderings. I caught the last 15 mins of his documentary called "Jamie's Sugar Rush". 'Twas about 15 too many. I can't make myself care enough to do some digging (please) but what I saw contained a dubious-though somewhat ironic-commentary on indigenous Mexicans consumption of fizzy drinks.

In conversation, he made out that this really required some compelling explanation, which turned out to be, they saw fizzy pop as some kind of sacrament [no, I'm not exaggerating]. This from someone peddling secondhand mythology about sugar as the devil's dandruff [ha, ha, bet that gives you pause] responsible for whipping off a leg near  you. All this within a background of a baby on the breast and food cooked from fresh and wholesome ingredients.

Mexico has instituted a sugar tax the programme claimed has reduced 'obesity' by I think he said, 50,000 people. Yep, 'obesity' reduced by x people. That slipped through. I told you 'obesity' has been deemed 'disease' not 'a disease' as folks tend to insist. The distinction is made by what 'obesity' refers to. It defines people as disease in human form. That's clumsy etymology based on the identifying fatness from the eyes of an ignorant slim person imaging what it would be for them to be fat.

That is not what it is to be fat. 

It's a failure of cognizance. It is someone reaching beyond their intellectual capacity and falling flat. That fat people have borne it at all, let alone for this long, shows who's being allowed the controlling influence here.

The context of calories in/out making hunger and food targets put cooks in the firing line as culpable. Their fat phobia is defensive. That framing makes them feel bad, they take it out on fat people. Seeking to distance themselves. You are responsible, not us for making food that is (nominally) delicious.

It also gives somewhat of a taint. Interest, if not obsession with food doesn't make someone pathological, or bad. Hating fatz exonerates this interest.

Then there's what Oliver represents, a keening for gravitas. Cooking is seen as trivial and he is often seen as a dim but eager type. He's like those pop musicians, he wants to be taken seriously, do something important.

'Obesity' has lured him into thinking that's possible for him or necessary in this way. Everyone ought to be appalled at the lack of investigation into metabolic function. But not with the lack of policy formed around food fixated paranoia. You can never have too little of that. The documentary featured a primary (elementary) school where children grew their own veg and knew what various kinds were and like them. They also learned to cook, ace.

All these things were in many schools if you go back far enough. They were mainly removed during the crusade itself. Indeed its emphasis on individual choice in place of hunger was the most uniform agent in that and other things that mitigate implementation of the starvation strategy.

Though 'obesity' is a surface trivial irrelevance, it manages to be a poisoned chalice, splitting focus away from what is worthwhile and doable. If he'd just sought to re-establish a hot balanced meal for dinner in every school, he might have succeeded. Instead, it had to be a certain amount of calories and that just imposed one demand too many.

(Re-)establishing a gardening area in every school, teaching children about produce and wholesome ingredients, plus cookery lessons are laudable enough aims in themselves.

Enough to achieve everything Jamie yearns for, with the addition of fondness from those who might not have rated him. Though many support him-it is due to their fat phobia, not because he has truly impressed.

I understand the programme peddled the usual pseudo-science, conflating 'diabetes' with sugar consumption, the latter as causal agent.

Firing questions, why has type 1 gone up so much also, why do people who eat cook from fresh find 'empty' calories so acceptable to their palate, why isn't children growing produce and eating the norm and so on, just seem like they're aimed at the wrong person. Ultimately, its not Oliver's fault that 'obesity' has so uniformly drawn out the worst vanities in so many.

I would suggest to Oliver that he drop weight loss diet shill Susan Jebb and stick with his knowledge and love of good ingredients to create good food.

I'm not making any deep point, just saying, be aware cooks of sliding into this syndrome. Food is not the way we should be seeking to control our metabolic function. You are not guilty. So stick to what you are good at and be positive about it.

No Duty To Eat Greens

Now here's a really good article containing many points worth making about the current fat hating food paranoia. Can't say that everyday. Writer Stephanie Convery calls for an end misplacing "Judeo-Christian" virtue in salad greens. It's pitiful seeing Dawkins-type atheists rounding on Xtians, then channelling the same via food paranoia and fanaticism.

At least believers are self-aware enough to be honest about their need for religion.

She makes the point that this is not the right angle for examining the ethics of food.

That’s not to say there aren’t ethical, environmental and political questions to be asked about food, such as: under what conditions is it farmed? Are the workers paid fairly? Are there less resource-intensive and more sustainable ways to organise food production? But these aren’t questions that can be solved with personal angst over a dinner plate.

Personal is right. It's all about moi.

The article also notes that the highly recommended du nos jours green, watery veg are nutritionally speaking, pretty useless, as we run on energy. If that wasn't enough, some of it is toxic at high levels, which is one reason 'no-one' craves them like calorie dense food. Not completely, I once had a craving for lettuce so strong that I could get no peace until I went and got some. I sprinkled it with balsamic vinegar and a few shavings of Parmesan. Divine.

Purely because my body demanded it for some reason. Once.

As SC mentions, the ridiculous nay hysterical elevation of this kind of produce is topsy turvy wishful thinking driven by the insistence that "weight loss" must happen via calorie restriction. This makes first hunger then food its target. The hunger is usually silent, buried under "choice" as if an abstraction outside of bodily need.

What makes this special though is this,

Over the past decade or so, the Health At Every Size movement has been building momentum against this kind of “fat-shaming” culture that contributes to the development of pathologies about food,

 Whoo-hoo!!! Such confidence. Direct mention, free of shame or "obesity is teh bad" type apologia. Just factual acknowledgement, HAES (in the context of fat acceptance) has led the way in reversing this tide of pathological cultism, not to mention its companion pseudo-science.

Pretending nature's real "junk food", as much as I like it, is somehow the epitome of human health is that.

oac ABOLISH the 'obesity' construct instead

You're going to lurrrve this.

An organisation calling itself the "obesity action coalition" (oac) launched a campaign on the 6th of July this year to "Ban the F word", not the one that rhymes with yuck, they mean "fat". Why says you? It is purportedly to end "fat shaming." Or "weight bias".

 Fat shaming being the term for the referencing of fat people's lowered social status-caused by the 'obesity' construct, heavily sold by its wallahs-via insults developed on the theme of the insulting and dehumanizing 'obese' caricature.

Something neither (real) scientists nor medics have any business involving themselves in the creation of.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how cheeky these industry grifters are. If they do not like that, I'm sure they can take action. The oac claims as one of its victories, the taking down of the video put up by Kevin MD "Healthcare not fair-Dr. Sorry Ms Fatty." According to reports, they and 'the obesity society' (toc) had a word, which probably explains its prompt removal. Another one they claim is the seeing off of a rule to IQ test bariatric patients pre-surgery.

I don't have enough capacity to look that up, but I'm guessing it refers to an attempt by the bariatric industry itself, to stop people with intellectual disabilities from being butchered by bariatrick cutty men* was removed by their "advocacy". They're so helpful to fatz.

Though that could come back to haunt someone.

What intrigues is why KMD didn't bother to mention this advocacy, indeed, he lead us all to believe that it was down to more general complaints.

Physicians needed to hear from patients on this issue, and their voices came through loud and clear.

It would be overly coy to ask why front organisations featuring professionals can get heard with the speed of light. So I won't bother. It does illustrate something I've been pointing out for years, that the support of the white coat mafia is the reason for the windchill factor level of abandonment and hazing fat people have endured (and still do albeit to a vaguely lesser extent). Not the (slim) fat phobic public, nor your family, school yard bullies or even the slimming industry.

Anyhow, this ban the fat word mess is an obvious and crude attempt to co-opt fat acceptance, note the fat fist thrust into a militant salute (they know where that can go). The cheeky blighters deserve to have that nicked for thorough subversion. This organisation who states is purpose is "giving a voice to the individuals affected by the disease of obesity" wants to erase the word "fat" to give 'obesity' a clearer run. They insist weight is disease.

It is 'obesity' that needs abolishing. The actual underlying construct needs to go. It's not the word its the conceptualization it conveys.

Its existence is a cynical agenda laden ideological construct made for the benefit of professionals and people who wish to sell you things. Whilst weight outliers who often have something seriously awry are permitted to perish in the margins. Unheralded by these beneficent "voice givers." People who do not need "support" in their "journey", they need an actual scientific grasp of how to deal with the metabolic dysfunction erased by the existence of 'obesity' and its bullshit.

The cause of "weight stigma" is this misdirection and the measures taken to attempt to interest people in what would otherwise have no earthly interest to them. How much do you care about slim people's weight, now you've withdrawn from the imposition? No really, how often do you spend looking at slim people and thinking, "Your weight, your weight?"

No one is interested in weight, people are interested in being able to regulate and control the functioning of their bodies. Diet and exercise is the opposite of that. It is not only ineffective, regularly creating and/or increasing the "problem" its supposed to be solving/preventing. But it also makes you a servant of it. Your so called 'journey' is a life based around it.

Only people with serious malfunctioning of organs are expected to piss away so much mindspace, spirit and energy on a dishonest abstraction. And they at least have the prospect of imminent death to "motivate" them. By that I mean, they can die within the day without certain interventions.

If you look at a set of weighing scales, the ones for instance where a balance slides from one end to the other to measure a person's weight. That's  the same the breadth of human weight. Now imagine that a line was drawn at a certain point on that scale rule and it is announced that past this line is something different from what has come before.

You'd be incredulous. You can see with your own eyes, its a question of what point on the same scale. The mechanics that produce weight are rather like that, its a question of finding out how/where to alter that to stop weight from increasing or decreasing at a certain point.

Weight, as in "weight bias" is not " disease" at any point, though forces pushing it up or down the scale may well be. Like fertility before birth control, the issue with weight is there is no known effective means of stopping it unless your body does instinctively. Or it yields to starvation/forced eating.

In any other aspect of human functioning, finding out how to achieve that directly and efficiently would be recognized as the overriding aim. Instead 'obesity' an obsolete creation lost in the mists of time, an artificial derail has rooted itself in place like a useless stinky weed that keeps re-sprouting to cause confusion even to those below the Maginot Line of weight respectability, wishes only to perpetuate its own outrageously useless existence.

Its long since outlived any imagined usefulness.

ABOLISH THE 'OBESITY' CONSTRUCT

Replace it with proper wholly objective investigation into the anatomy and functioning of human metabolism and homoeostasis. This bitty-birth order, Internet use, ice cream fancying gives "greater risk for obesity" bollocks needs to end. This 'obesity', puts you at greater risk of x, y, or z illness-as if that does anything, needs to cease. By finding out what something is all about, you find out how good/bad or indifferent it is or can be. All is required for understanding. No-one understands any condition/state etc., via trying to make it an unimpeachable villain.

Instead, we need to be concerned with a sense of what parts are involved in recreating our cells and tissue, our meat and marrow and a sense of its physiological dynamics. That in and of itself would decimate "weight bias" more than any laws on the statue, pleading, social justice efforts or janus faced "advocacy".

I'll repeat, the issue is not the words used, it is the concepts they're transmitting. Defining fat people's bodies as slim ones suffocating in an adipose suit that is their own bodies, is not only stupid, mindless and pathological, it is and can only be a hopelessly biased dead end that will continue to go nowhere slowly.

Think of those thin people who think everyone fatter than they ="fat", including slim people. Now imagine these thin people insisting that slim people define themselves as thin people wearing a padded onesie.

Exactly.

Altogether again,

ABOLISH THE 'OBESITY' CONSTRUCT

  

Plus its attendant pseudo-science. Fat people are not an employment scheme for the lumpen bourgeoisie.

* Interestingly, obesity and its associated co-morbid conditions are prevalent in patients with cognitive impairment, but the risks and benefits of bariatric surgery in this complex group are not well known.

Studies examining outcomes have been limited to case reports, and thus most bariatric programs do not consider patients with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to be surgical candidates. At more severe levels of impairment (Intelligence Quotient [IQ] 50-70), only 6.2% of programs do not consider this a contraindication. Furthermore, published guidelines, such as the 2013 AACE/TOS/ASMBS guidelines on perioperative management of the bariatric patient [2009 version], note the importance of a clear understanding of the risks, benefits, outcomes, and alternatives to surgery, and this ability to consent may be compromised in those with cognitive impairments.

 NB A study of 169 prospective bariatric surgery patients

Morbidly obese individuals seeking bariatric surgery were similar in education, income status, and IQ compared with normative data.

Rehabilitating Your Urge to Move

We are born moving and have instincts to move that are rhythmic. At certain times it feels better for us to move than others. Like at times it feels better and easier to get to sleep than others.


This article, "Lack of Exercise can disrupt the body's rhythms" is talking about exercise helping us to know optimal times to move. It feels like its conflating exercise with movement, which sometimes happens. They aren't the same. The peaks of your natural instinct toward movement is something you should be able to pick up on at any state. If anything, I'd say exercise isn't a good way to achieve this for most people. Especially if you aren't in to it.

It's a bit like demand feeding/normal eating/intuitive eating. You have to clear psychological obstacles out of your mind-like identifying your body as inherently incompetent or yourself as forever physically incapable. Adopt a new more neutral open-minded stance, if positivity is too much of stretch.

Put your mind on alert for optimal times to feel the urge move at its most strongest, then above all, respond to those feelings/urges, freely. Act on them, no matter how short in duration-seconds even!
Follow through with that impulse as long as it feels good to you, stop promptly when it ceases to- at least at first, until you get into the swing of things, later you'll gain more flexibility.

With consistent practice and patience these urges should become stronger and more distinct, longer lasting and more satisfying to engage with.

The key is learning to perceive and go with rise in your instincts to move, synchronize impulse with a positive response. Avoid overburdening them with excess desire, guilt or shame about seeing yourself as inactive, or needing to make up for lost time.

Now's the time to learn patience and love for yourself. Go at your own pace.

You can do this outside the movement you need to make to go about your normal affairs. It will feed into that at some point.

Make a point of shifting your consciousness away from any negative or forcing to a more coaxing wait and see what you can do, type stance.

If at first you can't feel any sense of an urge to move, then try for least disinclined/most easeful of all. And take it from there.......

Traci Mann's Secrets

It's usually worth reading the admirable Traci Mann on diets especially, as she's one of those rarities who has the moxie to just go with the truth about eating and weight. She has a new book out, "Secrets from the Eating Lab", I'd definitely have a look. This article and interview contains some telling details.

A few points first. Diet-as in what you eat-can have "types", weight loss dieting though is purely singular. It is one thing and one thing only-consuming too few calories for your body to sustain its [current] mass. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your pin.

What we’re told are “types” of [weight loss] diet are mainly about desperate attempts to increase the body's tolerance of diets. For example by manipulating appetite- the ratio of macro and other nutrients you eat.

High-protein [weight loss] diets appeal to those whose appetites favour protein rich foods. High carb diets make use of those whose leanings are towards carbohydrate rich foods and so on. The aim is to increase moral. Dieting is very morale sapping due to it usually being so unpleasant. 

Mann says something amusing “no one has any willpower”. I’m presuming that references dieting’s failure of everybody. Some favoured bull is spread around-that above a certain weight you’re unlikely to lose enough to become slim.
 
That's misleading, it's equally true of all weights, including thin people repeatedly shedding and re-shedding a few pounds. Obviously, if you're always thin/slim then that failure isn't apparent. The same mechanics in all of us is producing the same outcome, restoration of each size's starting mass or thereabouts.

Willful delusion forces such obvious failure to be cast elsewhere, in this case onto the dieter. That also distracts from questioning the principle of hunger-blocking as weight regulation.

Dieting becomes like god, it can never truly fail, only sinful humans fail it. 

Actually, dieting via its inherent dysfunction demands and uses up tremendous amounts of will power, it's a-lead your horse to water but can’t make it drink-type situation. Merely leading [and holding] the horse, i.e. your body to starvation drains will power to little productive end.

Dieting is broken and pretty much unfixable, certainly as a general technique, its existence doesn't even make sense. If weight is all about conscious decision-making, then stop making that decision-the end. No need for a plan beyond that.

The plan reflects the fact that hunger is not generated in the conscious mind.

It’s worth remembering not to think in terms of [why] the body fails diets, when it’s the other way around. Diets fail the body. The primacy of the body over dieting needs to be reasserted. The body does not have to answer for it's failure.

When you are dieting.......your brain becomes overly responsive to food, and especially to tasty looking food. But you don't just notice it — it actually begins to look more appetizing and tempting.

This is an action of your nervous system-your brain is the primary hub of that of course. People seem to find it hard to grasp that because all this activity operates through your own information superhighway-your nervous system-that the action of dieting, more specifically your body's response to it, can literally change the way you see, perceive and even  seeming to put thoughts in your head.

You may also remember that this feature was identified as one of the problematic eater types in that BBC Horizon doc. And that I had this exact problem as one symptom of a hyperphagic eating disorder. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a facet of Georgia Davis’s metabolic problems-and others like her.

Mann describes this as increasing [eating’s] “reward value”. I disagree; it increases the imperative to eat. In other words, it’s like having the munchies when you smoke a blunt, or the action of an overactive bladder where the urge is overpowering, even when your bladder is empty.

It’s not that eating becomes more enjoyable-it doesn't necessarily at all-it’s that the urge continues to recruit more and more nervous circuits in your brain-in other words the urge takes it over. Your will is literally overpowered and it becomes too uncomfortable to the point of distressing not too go with it.

Relief of such discomfort is hardly about pleasure. It feels way more compelling than normal hunger. Though I get that's a difficult concept for many.


As for the hormones, I’m not hot on them, but that seems more a register of your depleted energy, framing them as cause. Iow, if I jumped out at you-shocking you, your feelings would be expressed by chemical release, that didn’t cause your fright; that’s how your body both signals and registers it.

These hormones don't stop diets working, they're signalling your body's defensive response to deprivation.

Energy conservation-the body adapting to less by using less energy to function-is yet another defense-they are multifarious, showing the body is really designed to resist starvation and why it so often succeeds. This is often put down to saving you from famine, it could just as well be a defense against anorexia too, as that is a build up of a compulsion to starve, which can also takes over a person's brain. 

One of the things stopping anorexics perishing ever more quickly is this energy conservation.

“How could it [work]when you have to fight against all of that?”

Exactly. When we are this designed against proto-anorexia, it is definitely the wrong way, [not the only way]. 

There is absolutely no reason why reversal of weight must only occur through hunger blocking, unless that in itself is the true aim.

She makes a brilliant observation about the experience of dieting in a way that I hope becomes the norm.

Let's say you're in a meeting, and someone brings in a box of doughnuts. If you're dieting, now you need to resist a doughnut. That is going to take many, many acts of self-control. You don't just resist it when it comes into the room — you resist it when you look up and notice it, and that might happen 19 times, or 90 times. But if you eat it on the 20th time, it doesn't matter how good your willpower was. If you end up eating it, you don't get credit for having resisted it all those times. In virtually any other arena, that would be an A+, but in eating that's an F.

Yes! Not only is this an acute representation of dieting’s flawed hypothesis, it helps tells us what anorexia is. You aren't simply saying  no repeatedly, you are repeatedly blocking an impulse-that of hunger. At some point, this repetition becomes varying degrees of compulsive in certain subsets.

Isn't that extraordinary?

Totally unexpected. This is what we want to happen when we are trying to master a skill! Who'd have thought it could ever spontaneously self-trigger toward such a devastating end?

That could explain why many PWA can get to feeling agonies of hunger, but somehow cannot act on that. Continual blocking builds a wall between the feeling and its response.

It’s like resisting the urge to sleep. No one feels it’s purely about self control to miss sleep to do other things. It’s recognized that there’s a trade off in terms of tiredness. The absence of a sense of consequence from thwarting hunger, produces unnecessary misunderstandings.

Nor is it "impossible" to reverse weight, this simply isn't the right channel.The assessment of dieting's efficacy [or lack of it] is probabilistic. The odds of achieving it via calorie restriction dieting is very thin [yea]. If people want better, they'll have to lobby for genuine ways and means which are entirely possible. 

The Obesity Construct is Blasphemy is it not?

Anything and everything is prostituted in service of seeking to justify re-defining human beings as disease. And why this is the way to alter metabolic function to produce desired outcomes. Go figure.

Now I'm atheistic, but one thing I've wondered for a time is why god-botherers don't find the construct of @besity blasphemous, basically outraging against a sacred entity. I have to admit, I don't really care. It's more academic on my part, but I have to wonder whether this is another example of people who talk the talk and are even into and have an emotional attachment to their ideology/set of ideas.

But somehow don't actually think about, through or with them.

i.e. the old the death penalty for even heinous crimes is an abomination. The death penalty without trial for your metabolic function/not being able to tolerate a life of starvation? Fine! Or child welfare is my priority, let's brand children subhuman targets and encourage them to avoid bullying by starving themselves and so forth.

It's none too surprising then that some feel the need to try "@besity is against x holy books sanctity of the human body" etc.,

This is a weak effort I must say. It's clear that the culture of fitness is flagrantly idolatrous. Xtians and others I fancy believe they're made in the image of him upstairs. If they're disease.....well....need I say more?

I'm genuinely curious.

Dr. Sharma Says: Get off Your Knees Fatz

Well, well, well. Here's one for you self hating fatz types especially. Your friend Dr. Sharma is finally admitting that if you do not stop playing 'obese' and divest yourselves of unremitting shame, you'll continue to get what you've already gotten-the sharp end of a very long pole up your posterior end;

the only thing that will change this is when people living with obesity stand up for themselves and get “engaged”....

Got that?

We tried to tell you! Fat people's acquiescence to abusive handling is why we are in the dirt and continue to be, not due to any occasional outbreaks of resistance. If you've spent your life in abject surrender-and that brings you wrath-then surrender is the problem not the solution. No matter the dissonance that provokes in those who can't tell the difference between what feels right-because they're doing as their told-and a more rational take.

The cheeky buzzard even has the nerve to say;

It is evident that the bias, shame, blame, and discrimination that surrounds obesity is so pervasive that very few people living with this disease apparently have the courage to stand up and publicly share their stories and “demand” help and support for dealing with this condition. 

There you go. Fat people have no courage. We are so weak, we can't even stand and pretend to assert the undermined connection with our intrinsic humanness.

Oh rilly? How did that happen pray tell? Following the advice of 'science' that's how. Never being able to accept true outcomes, that's how. The disease-mongering lying that's the 'obesity' cult is how.

'Obesity' has laid waste to even the most no-nonsense large and in charge fatty's self conceptualization, to some degree or another. Does anyone really think people can endure an enforced state of body dysmorphia, panic syndrome induced by insisting we permanently catastrophize to "motivate" ourselves, whilst existing in an often permanently excruciating state of discomfort and shrug it off?

I'd love to see Sharma try that. Actually, no I wouldn't, because I wouldn't wish it on anyone but the truly wicked and I mean that. 

I'll let him into a secret, he couldn't have come out of this any better than us, don't doubt it. He hasn't a clue, because like a lot of his cronies, he's out of touch with fat people's deepest thoughts and feelings.

As much because fat people are too-when it comes to the experience of being fat, as the on-going lack of objective observation.

The only reason for such absurd expectation is fat people's incredible grace. I've said it before, fat people should be studied for the amazing extent to which we have withstood such relentless and ruthless assaults on our character and person, over such a sustained period. Sometimes from a very young age.

Living the 'obese' persona turned me into someone I despised more than the most wicked people who've ever lived-for long stretches. This damaged me, and yet, somehow......resilience. The psychopathologies-cognitive distortions etc., caused by playing 'obese' are sometimes quite noticeable. Some are easily as bad as what is diagnosed as separate neuroses in those who aren't fat.

On some level I almost guffaw at this. We are walking around in plain sight with these, yet many aren't downed by them. And don't expect the 'obesity' crew to know anything. They've so pathologized people-including their odious pity-they can barely tell.

Honestly, they're like a monkey on your back.

Intriguingly, this suggests not that its better not to know [you have a neurosis], but that the burden imposed by portentously focusing on neuroses, can be the last straw for your mind. Rather like playing 'obese' disrupts metabolic function often in the ways fat people are caricatured.

'Obesity' in modern times, though perhaps not always, has got to be one of the most useless that ever passed for what? Scholarship (?) [Oh please, I'm on the floor]. It's supposed to exist to serve fat people. How odd a notion is that?

It's supposed to be driven, unbidden, to acquire knowledge of metabolic anatomy, function in order to uncover new pathways to improve health and well being of those who need it most. It's supposed to be fully engaged with fat people's bodies, how/if they function differently and how to make the most of that.

They'd engage with fat people too, get to know them. You get to know people best by looking after their needs.

Instead, this discipline [snigger] is filled with food fixated zealots, putative social engineers and those who wish to advance the interference of the medical profession in areas many do not want them to be in.

No other has ever trashed its own supposed vehicle for study.  Not people engaged in studying paedophiles, psychopaths, violent criminals. NONE.

Every single one of those fields have humanized their subjects by default due in some part to the outcome of academic rigour. If not some fellow feeling for, or some desire to do some good. Not 'obesity.' Remarkably its recent outpourings have managed to introduce a remorseless dehumanization of those it should want to help.

That muppet Yalom  says he finds it easier to connect with those convicted of heinous crimes more than fat people. He said that with more ease than most 'obesity' wallahs could show to fat people, even when they're sweating to pity fat people. Which is not at all apt.

It is truly monstrous to have a field filled with so much hatred for those its supposed to be caring for. I honestly cannot think of any other where so many involved openly want fat people to suffer, or even to die.

I mean we hear about the fattest all the time in the media and television. Where are the Dr Sharma's, the Karen Hitchcock's, the Yoni Fredhoff's to give the benefit of their objective expertise? Name one field where that would not be the case? These might as well be in hiding.

That is why areas of knowledge about health progress. Experts in any other field would lose their shit if any hack misrepresented their area of expertise in the way the media routinely does to fat people. Private words would be had with the programme makers, broadcasters, newspapers etc., and it wouldn't be nice.

So after decades of silencing you and getting others to enforce this. You're expected to emerge pristine and presumably ready to give suitably simplistic sob story of "living with this disease." As usual, it's somehow always down to the fat public to do the professional's jobs for them.

Because suddenly behaving like a true academic discipline is so far out of sight, they can't imagine it. 

They'll have another conference though.....

Leading Cause of Chronic Child and Adult Health Problems? ACE's

For years now there's been talk of how "poor diet" is a leading cause of (preventable) death more recently promoted to the top spot.

I don't feel entirely at home with this kind of competition. Something makes me skeptical about the construction of leading cause of deaths when it comes to the kind of chronic conditions most associated with wear and tear.

We will all die of something at some point. Not wishing to be ageist but how old does a person have to be before their passing is deemed, not preventable?

Anyway a more pressing reason to reject this assertion and its usual shallow agenda. The health effects of ACE's aka Adverse Childhood Experiences are usually absent from the overall picture. From parental, societal and peer sources. Whether abuse, sexual and other exploitation, bullying, assault, neglect and verbal aggression. All are being finally realized more recently as sources of more chronic ill-health.

Before the "toughen up"/get over it crew get going, this is what prioritizing health and personal responsibility really means. You cannot have any of that truly, without a comprehensive index of each and every, at least major, influence on each particular person.

If you find that an unnecessarily exacting thought then you are finally catching on to what your mindless rhetoric really refers to. The crusade has completely isolated fat people as if we have absolutely no contact with any other human being and transcend our era, time and place.

I've said forever that health can be affected by virtually anything that affects you, to the good or ill. The fixation on food and eating is an instinctive and sometimes quite conscious way to dodge this. Especially when it demands disciplined behaviour from those who like to feel free to impact on people and their health.

It also tends to quickly raise political questions undermining the deliberate intent to depoliticize people's existence. 

6 Types Of Human Being

Following on from the blatant lie that fatness or being fat is "disease," this delusion keeps getting stupider.

And yeah, you are supposed to be overlooking this.

A posit has been tentatively advanced-that there are six types of 'obesity' i.e. people. That's one in the eye for self hating fatz pompous posturing about "not able to tell themselves from their obesity." You'll note from these media reports-that's because there can be no difference. Ob doesn't equal metabo.

Though I get the legacy of we are immaterial and the body is just a perishable shell to carry around our immortal souls etc.,

In the more secular assessment of homo sapiens 'obesity' and person/people becomes conflated. You can't separate the measure of a whole person, from that person. You can focus on the metabolic system as discrete from the whole human being, but then you'd have to stop pretending that metabolic function is regulated chiefly via conscious direction.

This conceptual flaw that should have been immediately spotted by the minds of those who decided all people above a certain size are the same person replicated, as if with a photocopier.

All they have to do is allow their minds to function properly again. Not to do so is their direct CONSCIOUS CHOICE.

The headline "Six types of obese individual" [not even sure how that one works grammatically]. "Obese individual" is supposed to counteract the de individualizing of fat people created by the 'obese' construct. Now there's six "individuals". Just end this nonsense and you won't have to bother with this tosh. 

Underscoring the stock photo of a headless fat person. "Study claims that targeted treatment will be much more effective at helping obese individuals." The first line;

Researchers have identified six ‘types’ of obese person, claiming that a tailor-made approach to each could save the NHS money.

What they're effectively saying is there are 6 types of human being;

• young healthy females – women who were obese, but generally had fewer human obesity-related complications, such as type 2 diabetes
• heavy-drinking males – as above, but with higher alcohol intake
• unhappy and anxious middle-aged – predominantly women with poor mental health and wellbeing
• affluent and healthy elderly – generally positive health, but defining characteristics of higher alcohol intake and high blood pressure
• physically sick but happy elderly – older people with more chronic diseases such as osteoarthritis, but good mental health
• poorest health – people who were the most economically deprived and had the greatest number of chronic diseases 

Young women, dipsomaniacs and alcoholics of indeterminate age, neurotic women, rich old bon viveurs with heightened blood pressure associated with advanced years, positive old people with various ailments associated with age, poor people some of whom have chronic disease.

I mean you can't even laugh.

I wonder if this will challenge astrological signs, there are twelve of them. Suffice to say, I'm not any of these six, are you? I include slim and thin people in this because this is about humanity as a whole. They just happen to be using fat people to illustrate their point.

As for the so called "targeted treatment" referred to, this is crudely borrowed from the idea of targeted treatment for real not fake disease. The idea being that instead of treating for example cancer according to the body part it shows up in. They're going to try treating it according to the type of cancer it is.

I don't know about you but its a surprise that they don't already, in fact despite that link, I'm not too sure about that. Mind you, I thought different body part equaled different cancer too.

The obvious flaws in this sad panto mimicry is that @besity is FAKE as disease and bankrupt as construct. The fundamental intellectual snag is no matter the marketing type or whatever categorization you prefer, the target is always the same-HUNGER.

No matter how you try to dress that up, its still the same rotting carcass.

Weight loss diet wallahs always think messing about with appetite will rescue calorie restriction. Its high protein, no paleo, no low-fat, no vegetarian, no vegan, no Mediterranean's that's best diet for "weight loss."

They keep failing to grasp the problems lie with restricting calories not with the way you mis-direct attention, bamboozle, create a kerfuffle whilst doing so. Nor does it matter what you call calorie restriction-the way the body reacts to it is where the problems lay, not with the side issues.

Repeat after me; if you wish to reverse weight, study and work out the body's own genesis and maintenance of its body mass. Then you can learn where you can manipulate or tweak this in order to change what is the outcome of function, not personality type or societal status.

Starve 'n' Sweat Cannot Argue with Itself

Being dangerously overweight is all down to bad diet rather than a lack of exercise, according to a trio of doctors who have reopened the debate about whether food, sedentary lifestyles or both are responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Where to begin?

Best to deal with what I emphasized. You may not be surprised to learn, that is not a debate. That happens when two or more opposing views are aired. [Why's the @besity crusade either busy chasing or faking non-debates? Is there anything it isn't faking?] Calories in, calories out, or the diet-weight hypothesis refers to the construction of body size as the product of calorie intake minus calorie output.

They are both the same idea, calorie or energy manipulation, via opposing ends (of the same branch). Anything which deals with directly manipulating energy is just a different means to bring about said aim-that includes, stomach removal/gastric re-routing, gastric binding along with most slimming drugs.

They all advance on the same principle, reduce the amount of energy coming in and/or increase the amount going out.

What would be another idea? Theoretically, it'd have to be altering the mechanics that produce weight to change that outcome. In concrete terms, I'm not sure. Everything has been so centered on starve 'n' sweat deliberately, and our grasp of the interplay of metabolic systems so limited, that its hard to get in the mindset of other ideas.

Other routes have been gone down, which could signify other ideas.
 
Manipulating gut flora via bacterial transfer gut, obviously doesn't target fat tissue directly. It appears to have the same mechanical flaw as repeating energy manipulation-homeostasis unravels it, though there maybe a subset of people in whom its affective.

Seems that gut flora as well as acting "like an organ" is a cog in metabolic function, not a driver of metabolic outcomes.

An even further outsider is through something like meditation, yoga, or other practices that soothe/stimulate/refresh the nervous system. That pathway's a long shot because it doesn't promise any amount of weight reversal, though has the potential to if it can be directed at the right place. As usual exceptions apply.

Restorative therapies can lessen hunger and/or appetite because they target/affect/manipulate the nervous system. Cals in/out-starve 'n' sweat-targets fat tissue via suppressing hunger and appetite. Meditation and other restorative therapies affect the system that carries the various messaging and biochemically mediates the operations of metabolic function. Thus supporting greater integrity of function. 

The latter works with the body the former disrupts it. That's the "battle" as in "battle with my weight." Not your will, but your body's metabolic self regulation.

It could be comparable to taking on your immune system [starve 'n' sweat] versus supporting and improving its level of function [restorative therapies].

Starve versus sweat is a non-argument that has become sterile even to many committed fat phobes. It speaks of people who are stuck in a mental hole they refuse to get out of. It's back and forth, round and round is made from ideology above biology. Neither starving nor sweating is the route to reversing weight. Blame is not an issue, even if it mattered.

This is anatomy, not morality.

A Doctor/Patient Model Could Have Been

It has always been my contention that though doctors increasingly wax on about "personal responsibility" they simply don't want the reality that entails. One of those titles sums up, "It's difficult being a doctor in the age of the empowered patient."

Why if you wish patients to take more responsibility for themselves? That phrase "empowered patient" is somewhat redundant. Why should patient equal dis-empowered? Why should a patient be any less than the equal of any doctor they bring their body to? Who else but a patient has the potential to have a uniquely comprehensive insider view of the experience of being themselves? And how can this even be a thing when there are open assertions about sometimes, extreme lack of patient initiative?

Like all humans, medics wish to have their cake and eat it to. They want the abject docility, they've come to base their power on, without the burden that increasingly imposes on them, in an era of chronic health problems. As a profession overall, they've grown accustomed to used to the kind of passivity that serveed the contagion/magic bullet mode of disease.

Their power has to a large extent come from patient dis-empowerment, to put it bluntly.That exchange requires reformation.

They could have had this already, if they'd truly desired to. Fat people took it up themselves to follow their general prescription, to diet, diet and diet again-no matter what, and press repeat. Until our nervous systems burned out from that-because that's what happens if you keep at it long enough. Or simply wised up that these findings were consistent and repeatable. In other words, they were scientific, despite mainly going unacknowledged at best, or denied at worst by those charging themselves with that.

If instead the truth had been full recognized, our extensive co-operation and goodwill could have promoted a respectful mutual dialogue and illuminating interaction. A truly progressive exchange. As we were so committed to the experiment, it could have changed in nature being informed by our experience. That usually happens with research, progress.

Those of us that wanted to could have signed on-unofficially-for the shifts in focus that would have had to have been the product of greater intelligence collated from practice. Practice that illuminated physiological function e.g. the first thing that happens when you merely intend to start a restricting energy is hyperphagia-hunger and appetite activity goes right up.

This can be a trigger for hyperphagia nervosa [heightened appetite not knowingly related to hypothalamic compromise]. This could have been warned against, to this day, most people don't realise having restriction hanging over you long-term can have this effect. It would have acted as a break on the always be trying to lose weight culture. It would have meant switching off between attempts and that could have stopped some hunger/disordered/eating disorders from developing.

Not only reducing the number and extent of hyperphagia/cs, reducing the psychological harm that can occur when the nervous system gets repeatedly then becomes chronically overtaxed. That's simply one aspect. True acknowledgement of facts and reality, monitoring through genuine and meaningful study would have reduced stress immeasurably, giving people a sense of their own power, even if it didn't bring the desired results.

Not all of this is for medics obviously, but this would have informed communication between doctor and lay people-if not patient. All would have been ample evidence of the extent of people's efforts, that could then not be denied. It could also reassure doctors, reducing their weird sense of being victimized by their patients' weight.

When you find out that a person struggling to deny their body for years, finally somehow corners their body into reduction and finds their body loses weight from everywhere but their mountainous belly/their big arms, legs etc.,-me!!

You'll find it hard to shout, "Non-complaint" into a void made from ignorance. Indeed, there would be no void, instead a pool of facts and figures. There would be potential for progress and hope of more.

This filtering of on-going experience into an on-going real life experiment with human metabolic function would have altered the expectation of patient engagement without little duress, for either.

But of course, the medical profession as a whole didn't want that. Many still don't. Though I can grasp that, I'm still struggling with the depth of their desire to martyr themselves at the alter of fat people's supposedly refusnik will. I cannot fathom what they hoped or hope to achieve from penning us into a place where we cannot move forward, only press repeat ad infinitum often going backwards. Nor do I get how they are able to behave as if this hasn't happened.

Though I guess that's a feature of the denial of reality. 

They'll take some challenge from their social peers though as long as it's tightly within the conventional frame of boning up on acceptable available research;

Often our patients were well-informed scientists, teachers or university lecturers. They did extensive research on the unusual ailment or the latest groundbreaking medication. As a trainee GP with little experience, it was often daunting to manage these intense patient-led encounters. Whether prescribing a statin for high cholesterol or referring for investigations, everything involved negotiation with the patient. It was immaterial that there were 10-15 minutes allocated to each encounter: the consultation finished when a plan was reached.

This for me doesn't really come close to what might have been. That's about social position, not the future of medicine. We could have been part of moving the research process forward of directing it to more fruitful and useful grounds.

What a bloody waste.