Fat Handbags Have Already been Stopped

Continuing on from yesterday's post and the noteworthy attempt of 'obesity' promoters to decry any possibility of blocking a cell that has already been blocked. Looking back at research indicating the maturation process of our fat handbag adipose cells, can be stimulated to completion by a hormone called Adamts1.

Sentiments expressed by Dr. Brian Feldman-part of the research team concerned-about the purported implausibility of slowing fatty tissue genesis was backed up and emphasised by an NHS website,

The coverage by the Mail Online was generally accurate, highlighting the important fact that this research has not necessarily identified a target for anti-obesity treatment options.

"The important fact" eh? Why would that be either? Important to whom? It's not even about expectation management. If you say, eventually it seems like they'll be a means of stopping adipose tissue from increasing, you can go on to say, but not for a while yet if you want.

It's the enthusiasm for shutting that avenue down that is a red light.

If one steps back from puberty, it could be seen purely as an increase body mass. In healthy cells; bone, muscle and FAT [etc.,]. By dint of that, blocking or slowing puberty effectively does the same for adipose as part of that repression,

Initiating the treatment early for a child who experiences gender dysphoria has greatest effect; the body of the patient is less developed and later, the need for surgery such as mastectomy or “reduction thyroid chondroplasty and voice modification therapy” is avoided.

Avoid mastectomy? Okay, this is the brotherhood of wikistan, I haven't looked further into it yet, still, I think we can confidently state the human breast has fatty tissue.

Puberty blockers supposedly work by suppressing the release of chemicals that launch the process of puberty into effect. They are released from the pituitary gland. Incidentally, one of these hormones is called "follicle-stimulating hormone" or (FSH), yes, that relates to the troublesome, poly-cystic ovary, follicles. This could go to explain why PCOS can now seemingly be diagnosed without the presence of challenging follicles.

I'm not here to recommend nor decry puberty-blocking, initially a treatment for precocious puberty. This is really about being told what isn't supposed to be possible or likely, when it has already happened however imperfectly.

Even if it hadn't, it would hardly be an outlandish possibility to be able to modify the extent/speed of one cells proliferation, given the body already does this. If you've ever dieted for any period, you'll know that it can speed up your body's capacity to gain weight like no-ones business. How can that happen if gain is all one speed?

And where you can slow, you can look to stop, or at least slow even further. So if any 'obesity' wallahs are struggling with this concept, why don't they mosey on over to those working in the area of arresting puberty and ask them for a clue?

It slightly recalls the suggestion that "weight loss" is supposed to be hard, when the body already goes down (and up) in weight, daily, with consummate ease. One might humbly imagine attempts to figure out the ways it manages this impossibility/immorality/unlifestyle generated action. Only for that also to be mysterious improbable.

As I've repeatedly stressed (oops), "obesity science" doesn't actually have to reverse weight. It can merely settle for subduing replication of cells. The spluttering response...

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

...when confronted with this notion fails to grasp-stopping a person's weight/fat mass where it is. Which is the norm for most people fat to thin alike, it's homoeostasis, all you're doing is seeking to help that along. When it comes to blocking fat, of course we are talking about the activity that promotes its genesis /proliferation.

We are talking here about outliers who are enduring aggressive symptoms that include/lead to swift unending gain. 

And blocking or suppressing adipose cells can equally have an affect on other metabolic features including hunger and appetite. Because fat cells are "metabolically active" sending as well as receiving messages.

You may be asking why in the midst of a supposed adipocalypse of urgent proportions, is there this continual urge to deny possibility of the obvious target to save us from this impending hellacious fate? In favour of such cutting the sugar in soft drinks.....no less....

The Elephant in the Room

More good news from yesterday. Dementia diagnoses experienced an unexpected drop, over the last 20 years. The study authors didn't engage in speculation as to why, except when they did;

The findings are potentially significant because they suggest that it is possible to take preventative action, such as stopping smoking and reducing cholesterol, that could help avoid the condition. “Physical health and brain health are clearly highly linked,” said Carol Brayne of Cambridge University, who co-authored the study.

You can do all those things and still be chubby, or fat or putting on weight. Which brings us to the elephant in the room. The crisis of weight.  Just as sure as this would have been prominently mentioned if the findings were negative, its only right that society's increasing weight should be mentioned as a possibility for the reduction in dementia.

That of course would also be speculative, though lower weight was surprisingly [to fat phobes] uncovered as a 'risk factor' for an increased risk of dementia-much to many people's bitterness. There's been a long term desperation to insist fatness and dementia go together like venereal disease and unguarded sexual activity. 

Not that I would dream of insisting people try to put on weight, heaven forefend such flagrant degeneracy as obstructing weight reversal. This is just a reminder that health is a complex overlapping business. Imperatives clash and choices have to be made, others eschewed as they do not suit nor make sense on an individual or even community basis.

That for me is the reason why we have no duty to be 'healthy' according to the dictates of self-serving authority. Rather than any kind of abstract libertarian-style ideal of disposal of body as one wishes. Yes, as long as it's clear that it is inherent in human agency and self realisation to-seek to maximise your function-to the best of your ability. Or pursue health as others would call it.

To me, the language of "self destruction" is nonsense, a slander healthists love to build their shady empire on. The idea that we don't care about our health. Yes we do. There's rarely such as the banal "self destructive" tag. Most placed in that category are either doing things because they feel that is what they need to do to keep going or do themselves good. Or they may be punishing themselves.

That's as self destructive as; fat people need to be brutalised to 'lose weight'. They believe they deserve it, due to their beliefs about themselves, or that it will do or produce good.

Healthists like to convince us we don't care, presenting themselves as having the solutions as long as we do whatever they demand. They claim to be the ones that truly care about your health, more than you obviously. The view that some of us wish to trash our bodies for the heck of it is not a convincing one. 

There is no rigid healthy standard as is too often asserted even by those opposing it. We need to watch the setting up of standards that may seem rational in our heads only to fail spectacularly in reality. Look how rational eat fewer calories than you use seemed before we chucked away so many years only to be left to repair the resultant mayhem.

That's why science has clinical trials, very little can be taken for granted when it comes to our ability to conceive of what is possible, versus what is.

I've not been so sure of 'healthy' since having to step back from adherence to living that way. I always had a suspicion that activity + certain dietary dictates =health was a simple reversal of, the more rewarding your life is, the more likely you are to emerge with your inborn instinct to move alive and kicking.

Few things represent the constraints of a more stressful life better than the need to disregard your urge to move due to the constraints placed on them and you.

Nor is healthism so sure of itself. I'll remind you of the thrust of much ''obesity' research' is healthy living is little use to the fat. Though these sound suspiciously emphatic, sprinkled liberally as they are with wishful thinking, drowned in bitterness sauce.

Many fat phobes fall into that trap thinking this debunks fat people's self realisation, actually, 'tis healthsim debunking healthism. If healthy living is only good for the purportedly healthy, then it does not produce the health claimed, ergo cannot be described as healthy.

Above all, we must be meaningfully ourselves.

Our bodies have their own rules.

Another Metabolic Outlier Pays the ultimate price for the 'obesity' crusade

Samantha Packham died in hospital this July. She was 20 years old, weighed 40 stones/560lbs/254kgs. She had fierce hyperphagia at 8 years old according to her parents Jan and Michael,

“She would eat her dinner and then she would just go to the fridge and help ­herself to more food. “We tried to tell her she’d just had her ­dinner and didn’t need anything else, but she would fly into a rage. “She would swear and once she even pulled the hinges off the doors – she was that strong at the age of eight.

That 'rage' by the way is a profound distress that jumps out at you from your very nerves, your mind becomes aware of it. So what next?

"We took her to the doctors but they did absolutely nothing.”

That sums up what the 'obesity' crusade is all about. Put tremendous pressure on people to do something they aren't designed for and give them no help to even give it a good go. If you want people to deal with hunger of this magnitude, why not work on switching hunger down? Meaning doctors could have demanded this of researchers.

They've gone out of their way not to. The whole 'obesity' crusade and its acolytes have consistently argued against objective research, claiming that just gives people "excuses". It "over-complicates" things, yes you read that. More knowledge of something you clearly no little about =over-complication.  The only thing left is spontaneous recovery.

This should all be getting a tad familiar. Samantha also had learning difficulties and went to special school like Carl Thompson. Her body's level of energy conservation seemed to be even worse than his.

There's no doubt the 'obesity' is slowly being encroached by the voices of experience. There's a slow dawning realization of the mess we have been put in by this 'obesity' narrative. The Mail's original headline was,

obese daughter who weighed 40 stone and was put into care as a teenager because her parents could not control her eating dies aged 20

First off, when you write 40 stone in a sentence, you do not need to write 'obese' or 'overweight', as it was subsequently altered to-'cos that's supposed to be more polite. It isn't. I'm sure DM journos are expensively educated enough to recognize the difference between a problematic moniker and a problematic construct. I'm guessing, they expect their readers to be too low in reason to notice the difference.

No joking about the Mail readership now, that is quite contemptuous, well, why should that all be on fat people? To reiterate for the peanut gallery, it doesn't matter what you name this weight construct, it is what you are naming that is the problem. Changing terms makes no difference.

Back to that headline, how defensive is it?!

.......because her parents could not control her eating

Someone doth protest way too much. Samantha was snatched by a state agency because her parents could not control her eating eh? Now you know that is disingenuous, none such is said to the parents of children/teens wasting from anorexia nervosa. The hunger of a human being, child or not is in the body of that person, not in the head of others, whether parents, a societal bullying campaign or strictures on industrial food.

This extent of defensiveness makes it clear to me that they know on some level or t'other that the overall insistence on diet or death is the real killer here, not Samantha's parents. She was described as the youngest victim of the 'obesity' crisis. In a sense that is correct, when you consider this conceit of denying people any real means to alter the regulation of their weight, regardless.

That sets up a diet or death scenario, as I've made clear this is the latter part. I wasn't hyping, I was pointing to the obvious implication of describing something as lethal, then denying any means of altering that course.

It's called consequence, something fat phobes so shield themselves from that they've lost all sense of their own actions creating effects of their own. There's no guarantee that Samantha would have made old bones, but, there's no question that the greatest avoidable responsibility lies with those who use their hold over the discourse on weight to argue against proper scientific investigation of metabolic function.

That is those who are fixated on trying to trap people into a life of starvation and hunger blocking. All those who insist weight is "your fault/ your choice/lifestyle choice"-'obesity' wallahs, medics, amateur fat phobes, yep, you've hastened the end of people like Samantha who could not defend themselves from your self indulgence.

You are also why there was little her parents could have done except contact a specialist in a condition that they may have had no idea their child might potentially have had.

Her parents were not given a fighting chance at helping her is the truth. And not because of 'healthy eating', no one should die for following or not following someone else's ideas of a pure diet. The idea of a correct diet equalling a correct weight is just another of many facile attempts to save calories in/out model.

To be fair the press including the DM have been increasingly making a show of playing both ends, featuring fat acceptance 'role models' and such. Face it though, FA was not the answer here. FA's for removing iatrogenically induced problems. It's not a cure for true metabolic derangement, hyperphagia, overriding energy conservation, hypothalamic disorder- require actual study and unravelling.That means letting go of blame culture and putting this aspect of the body's self regulation back on a completely objective footing.

What is required is proper full investigation into metabolic function, free of the tiresome irrelevance of the 'obesity' construct. 

Heavily featured is the so called guilt of the parents who predictably blame themselves and confess to their negligence. What half decent parent would not be wracked with feelings/wishes that they could have done 'better'?

To help illustrate a truer valuation of this, I hereby confess to being the one on the grassy knoll. Despite neither being male, being able to shoot a gun or even being born. It is of course not even being accepted fact that there was a second gunman. Anyone can confess to anything, ask police investigating murders. Stop tormenting people who are dealing with the horrific situation of burying their own child.

If anyone bothered listening to them, they knew the score,

“It was like an eating disorder. 

An understatement of epic proportions. A hunger disorder isn't quite that, you could say it disorders eating-obviously-by signalling excessively, it was undoubtedly a malfunctioning that needed relieving. Forget the supposed consequence of weight, experiencing an constant excess of hunger causes unnecessary suffering of its own.

For example, ask anyone who's developed a hyperactive bladder how they feel about the excessive signalling and feeling the process at a much earlier stage, or never feeling they've emptied? 

Nor is using people like Samantha as a poster for 'obesity' justified in anyway, except to illustrate just how out of control people can get when they get drunk on the ability to abuse people at their will.

Sober up fat phobes.