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."

Babyfat

Did you know they're branding  babies 'obese'? I didn't. It's been happening for years, the numbers classed as such are even being monitored by the government. In the past larger babies were called- macrosomic-"big bodied." More recently, its been decided that above 9lbs 15oz or 4500g are to be dubbed "medically obese" as if putting a meaningless "medically" in front of that will somehow legitimize the continued indulgence of pathologization and weight tribalism to babies;

"Despite these so-called risk factors for macrosomia, much of the variation in birth weights remains unexplained. Most infants who weigh more than 4,500 grams [9 pounds, 15 ounces] have no identifiable risk factors," says Allahyar Jazayeri, M.D., medical director of Perinatal Services and High Risk Pregnancy at Bellin Health Hospital Center in Green Bay, Wisconsin. 

Those above 8lbs 13oz [3997grams] are also being dubbed "overweight."

And yeah, this is in utero too. Babies are monitored for size as ever, but now they'll be able to be pathologized before they even exit the womb. What comes next? Low calorie/high protein baby milk? A breast feeding diet/regime in order to water down the milk produced, make it low fat? What about baby aerobics? Though infants have been shown to use up an outstanding amount of energy pound for pound/gram for gram-perhaps they can develop equipment to help them go for the burn. Leave them in cold rooms to encourage their brown fat?

Or how's about putting drugs into their milk? And if they're "morbidly obese"-if that hasn't arrived, I'm sure that's coming-they can have their little stomach's removed. Babies sicking up milk will no longer be a hazard of wind. It will be desired part of the "tool" that is gastrectomy as starvation aide.

Goodness knows, babies need those who hold and surround them to be transmitting the un-ease and disgust of 'obesity' to them. That's called m-o-t-i-v-a-t-i-o-n right?

What a triumph of "public health" that promises.

Another notable tack, picked up in the comments is how this is set to add more layers of panic to the experience of pregnancy and childbirth. Not only do mothers have to worry about their weight, their weight gain during pregnancy, now they must worry about their babies weight being seen as too high. Another area of variance is now to be caricatured and descend into the ever hungry orgy of blame.When will that ever suffice?

You'd think advancing on self control that those indulging in this could control themselves in just one area. That they could leave the children out of it but no, they have lost any real control over their damn selves. They wish to pit their foul malodourous assaults against babes.That's such a fair fight for these quisling cowards.

Public health politicos as usual don't seem to be considering the cumulative impact of this endless pile up of anxiety around pregnancy. They take responsibility for nothing, feeling only the liberation of all power and little consequence. Any part this pressure plays in increasing the risk of birth trauma, will no doubt be blamed on 'obesity.' Something has to create what they've talked up. 

Thinking of any thing like the levels of anxiety many of us have experience about being fat, having to find ways to get your body to accept starvation.....thinking about that being introduced into pregnancy makes my blood run cold.

The press are quick to find out how many, but don't bother to scrutinize "obesity science." How much money has been pissed away put into that, to so little use? No go on tell me DM or Sunday Mirror how much has the UK government spent on "obesity research" in the last 4 or even 2 decades? Ever fancy putting in a request for that? Why do the press have no interest in its utter uselessness, irrelevance and rank absence of vocation?

Why don't they challenge their hysterical pronouncements with even the most primitive of reasoning?

And how about mentioning the children (and adults) with hypothalamic obesity and how they need actual answers, rather than agit-prop? And that due to the absence of a progressive objective scientific approach, they have to rely on the same punishment as those they're able to set up as "at fault"? Or do they not count either? Does science or medicine not matter to you blasted hacks?

Hopefully, the sensitivity of fat haters to what attacks even them, will increase people's resistance, defiance and decrease the respect they accord those who show such a reckless disregard for the health of those who depend on us for everything-babies.

It only seems like yesterday when people were people, children were children and babies were babies.

Now, 'obese' is inserted in front of that at every possible opportunity. This has become so divisive that people find it harder and harder to recognize the same characteristics fat and slim people share. At first this was fake, this was pretense. With time, fake it till you make it is now making it. The constancy of pathology of fatness distorts everything from ordinariness to eccentricity, health to pathology turning all into accusation.

Presumably that's why babies cannot be left out of this crap. There must be no chance for the jarring of contrast. It could wake people up to the madness of all this. 

There's no way this is about health. This has become a drive to use biology to divide people into groups, turning weight into an identity-setting people against each other rather than looking at the hand that's working the strings. It's divide and rule. And the free press seeks to collaborate with this like an adjunct.

Branding babes in the womb is a way distorting owning them mentally from the get go. Before they can even begin to defend themselves, they're smothered in inferiority and self loathing, so they know no other way and cannot change their mindset-or "depression" as it's condescendingly cast. It's not "depression" if you're aware of a messed up situation that stays messed up you dimwits.

Depression is a nervous system imbalance/dysfunction, not the realization that people are gunning for your physical and mental health from all sides, for no good reason. Well done self serving public health warriors.

Embodiment Switch

Reblog, with edits!

The 'obesity' construct and the demand to be slim forces a fat person to disassociate and become somewhat detached from your own body-i.e. it's not real, it's temporary. And bond with a [slim] version of it that doesn't exist as the real one. We know this.

Following instructions from outside yourself-because your own thoughts are making you fat or what a men's diet club forum calls "fat logic"- a consequence of this unnatural situation is the internal balance of being grounded in yourself goes off.

The general norm is to set standards of behaviour and reaction rooted in the way you are generally treated and expect to be treated. That helps to set an internal standard by which we judge how others ought to be treated. What they should have to put up with. 'Obesity' alters that. Our internal standard becomes the treatment fat people accept for themselves. We couldn't possibly use that as a standard to judge others by.

Removed from a fat context-it would disturb, become sinister and unhinged, often psychopathic in tone. You get used to it, yet you know it. In abstract, it doesn't necessarily seem bad. It would though to judge slim people that way and would to me if I were to judge slim people by that standard too. So we know it is.

We instinctively get used to applying expectations born of how slim people are treated to judge situations and people. This becomes the automatic human standard, one we apply to ourselves too, and yet not.

I suppose the distinction is a little like the way you treat visitors as opposed to the way you treat your family.  I used to say a lot when I first got into FA that fat people have no double consciousness. WRONG. This is sort of one, though its nothing like as profound as that of a Black person or even a female double consciousness. It's more a mental switch than a consciousness.The fact that I overlooked it though, shows how ingrained and unnoticed it is.

The problem comes when we stop participating in the 'obesity' cult. Stop rejecting our own bodies and selves as somehow temporary or unreal. Not immediately but gradually, nature begins to reassert itself as we become (re-)grounded in ourselves. Our minds start to normalize, judgement grounded in our own experience and the standards we've inevitably adapted to.

This causes immediate problems. Cries of not grasping how slim people can have body issues etc., arise. That's not the case. It's more some of these problems which previously loomed as large to us as to them, begin to need a microscope. Because the place of judging them has shifted from an internalized form of their own, to a further distance away from there

Working out acceptable expectations can get interesting. We carry on using to the human [slim] standard, but some of our necessarily blasé attitudes born of facing the most outrageous nastiness can start to bleed into that.

I have this problem big time.

Going back and forth between the chasm that is how we have to think of slim people and how we have to think of ourselves becomes more and more, meaningless, boring, even irritating. It's a standard no longer nourished inside you as it was. And let's face it society has this divide too, in frustratingly plain sight. Which is causing its own issues. I've always wondered why people think shitting on a large minority of the population isn't a threat to democracy, in the sense that people get used to that treatment undermining the ability to perceive infractions.

I know that I can grasp far more of injustice perpetrated on others, than I could before. That is a big shock and I wonder if it's part of the suspicion the left has about fat people as a group.

This pre-post mental aspect of re-embodiment, has always caused a divide amongst fat people, especially the self hating kind, but also amongst many who do get it. It occurrence, degree and how one incorporates its strands are unpredictable and don't match ones commitment to self-assertion.

To those people as much as slim people, it can seem like fat people are being angry or even vengeful. Alas, it rarely occurs that fat people might have a reason for feeling anything that deviates from the 'obese' script that isn't malevolent. It's as if there's as much of a script for fat people's unexpected actions as there are for what's expected of us, i.e. imperfect eating and exercising.

I think the definition of people as disease pathology creates that. Priming minds to expect wrong doing. So the well is often immediately poisoned with these expectations, in lieu of more just explanations. How to explain these things? It never occurred for one second that this would happen, until it did to me.

Oversensitive

Due to the nature of both the eating disorder and 'obesity' construct fields and their spread of disinformation, we've lost a real sense of what hyperphagia nervosa (HN) is really like. 

I want to try and give you a basic idea of what HN, which used to be called "compulsive eating disorder" and is now latterly being styled as/or overlapping with "food addiction" feels like.

I used to object routinely;

• a) CED/HN in essence a mechanical fault-of the nervous system functioning 

• b) neurosis can help cause it by provoking the nervous system to keep triggering the part/s of itself concerned with hunger and appetite 

• c) eating is not the real problem, excess hunger/appetite signals are 

• d) it is not eating to get high, nor can any food but alcohol make you high that is intoxicate 

• e) it is not done (directly) for pleasure. You are compelled by the signalling, which is even more powerful than normal hunger-which is more than compelling enough 

• f) it is not caused by eating, it's caused by the misfiring of your hunger/ appetite mechanisms i.e. it doesn't have the conscious input of A or BN 

• and g) treating it by suppressing that signalling is more likely to increase than reduce it. WLD alone can trigger it in those susceptible to it.

"Some crave food even after they have just eaten, suggesting addiction."

This kind of ideation is currently being spread around. It's from one of latest studies trying to craft hyperphagia into this nonsense category-the ubiquity ad absurdum use of [f]"addiction" should get your bs detector zinging like a buzzsaw;

Claus Voegele, Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology, said: ‘All addictions are similar in that the sufferer craves to excess the feel-good buzz they receive from chemical neurotransmitters produced when they eat, gamble, smoke, have sex or take drugs.’ 

Absolute cobblers.

Says more about the wild imaginings ignorant fat phobes want to have about fat people than real life hyperphagics who come in all sizes. I'd say they get a feel good buzz out of this similar to "drug addicts", except without the accountability of their actions being visited on their own bodies.

The 'obesity' construct, merges all fat people together-functional outliers and average alike-no matter what else they do-does being fat prevent you from using drugs? Prescription ones obviously-they're the more (immediately) fattening ones.

So what is the above, wanting to eat straight after eating quote referring to really? It may surprise you if I say that the thing that most came to mind was a friend of mine who's bladder became sensitive. She had a constant urge to go to the toilet, even when her bladder was not closed to full or even empty. More than once, she went to the toilet with an empty bladder, came back and then immediately felt like going again.

Catch any resemblance?

Wanting to eat, after just having eaten-in this case after the stimulus of seeing a picture of food. Versus wanting to go to the toilet straight after trying to empty an empty bladder.

Both centre around a sensitized area, subject to an excess of nerve signalling

There are several forms of bladder problems. My friend had a sensitive/sensitized bladder, but this woman developed both that and urge incontinence-the bladder releasing too quickly.

What's remarkable about her description and that of her doctor, is how many points touch on what I said long before I heard any of this. She Marlene Brown, talks about how her life came to revolve around going to the toilet.

How she tried to adapt to try and prevent it, which caused her other problems. How the "constant urge for the bathroom...... was making my life a misery."

How often do you hear that from hyperphagics? That the constant hunger/appetite signalling is wearing them out? How can you, when the standard issue fat phobic lens is fixated as ever, solely on food, determined to keep fat people in their box, no matter what?

The ever present signalling after about almost a couple of decades put me on the edge too. I described it before as like some who develops tinnitus. The inability to not hear that can drive them up the wall.

It's the unrelenting nature that can erode sanity, even more than the thing itself.

She even talks about how she felt as if something was pressing on her bladder. I used to talk about how I felt as if a foot had its foot on the accelerator of my hunger somewhere in my mind not my head. It was not as physical. More an impression, but a palpable one nonetheless.

Her specialist Wai Yoong, explained to her;

I had urge incontinence, where the nerves around the bladder send off faulty signals that cause it to become hypersensitive. So even when it’s holding just a little fluid, the bladder thinks it’s full and starts to contract and spasm, which is why you feel the urgent need for the loo.

That's far closer to my experience of HN than any eating disorder professional I've come across has come close to in their witterings of what they want HN to be, certainly since I hit the net. Every squeak that happened in that area was magnified by its sensitized state.

And what about the treatment that she says halved her symptoms;

The new procedure involved putting a needle into my ankle for half an hour at a time, with an electrode under my foot to create a circuit. This would stimulate a nerve that runs from the spine to the ankle, passing the bladder on the way — somehow this would get the nerves sending normal signals again. 

So, in order to affect signals going to the bladder, you can get to them through the ankle and foot?! Think of the way they freely bind and cut fat people's organs rather than creating careful and ingenious procedures like this. The absence of loathing is a wonderful thing.

You might also sense the trickiness of treating HN. You have to achieve similar, using your mind on itself. My current conclusion is AN is easier to treat, but is a lethal condition. HN is not acutely dangerous, in the main, but is far harder to dismantle. That's because it doesn't have the direct conscious input that a lot of AN does. It's body led and its extended from a normal state rather than an acquired pathology. 

Yes, I recognise, there are differing perspectives. Most in the ED field, dominated it seems by women, seek an emotional angle. And let me make clear again, just in case, I don't believe the notion that emotions are lesser than or in opposition to thought. I believe they are a form of thought, they are at a different sometimes earlier stage and stand alone to what we translate into word(y thinking).

Emotions are to thoughts as we understand them, what stem cells are to an organ or body part. Emotions are both matter and what larger more conscious thought is read as.

The emotional component is there, but its as much the physical effect of emotions than direct mental disturbance in itself, like anorexia. Emotional signals go through the nervous system. When this is in a permanently heightened state, via depression, anxiety, negative self imagine etc., that gets the nervous system into basic range where your everyday emotions, reactions, experience, activities, on top of that, create surges powerful enough to trigger the mechanics of eating and hunger to signal excessively.

Strictly, you could say that's hypothesis, but its based on experience, it's not speculative. Nor attempting cultural recognition or increased social status. It's about trying to accurately render what's going on, so that everyone who wants it, has a chance to grasp what we are dealing with here.

It was also the basis of understanding that led me to be able to dismantled HN and I did, so there's that. I'm of course not the only one. Others have stumbled on a similar path, though I don't pretend to endorse their typical faddiction lens or premise.

The key to sketching a detailed biochemical view is in the details of function. But we'll only know the full story, when people stop messing around with silliness like forcing HN and anything else remotely or otherwise associated with fatness, into mad, crazed, greedy, consciously degenerate, fat  baddies, faddiction crud. 

The Arc of Weight Symmetry

When it comes to a tricky perception shift, I'll take help where I can get it. The story of Taryn Wright which points to what's missing from our learned purview on weight. Here's a woman that went from slim, fatten, then became slim again.

What's unusual is the way says her body became slim again. It was the way virtually everyone gains weight, backwards. Like a movie rewind.  Her weight literally, reversed itself, triggered by a change in circumstances, as a consequence of underlying change in her metabolic functioning.

This is what I have repeatedly said. Weight should come off the way it comes on, spontaneously with no more than the minimal actual effort due to reversal being consciously directly. That isn't the case with most gain which the body leads.

It's just that in western model countries, this hasn't been (re)discovered.

All the weight loss dieting, calorie restriction, proto anorexia/orthorexia as lifestyles, good food /bad food fixation nay obsession, with fitness, exercise bulimia, operations, pills etc., are all substitute for this kind of underlying resetting of function.

Which is and should always have been the aim.

When Taryn met her then future husband-to-be, she was slim. Her body gained slowly from the engagement, from what I can tell. She got married and that gain continued. She spoke about her feelings during the marriage, she felt cast adrift from her previous life-which she enjoyed-and felt trapped in her sense of isolation.

During this, she said she did the usual drill fat people endure of weight loss diet fail. Then after getting divorced, her underlying function responded and altered on its own. This, change her habits and the way she felt in general.

Ironically, her body seems to have slightly overshoot it's previous starting point. How often does that happen the other way?

Isn't that the exact same narrative of most people's spontaneous body led weight gain, in reverse? You realise you're gaining/ have gained weight. Perhaps your habits change or they don't. Perhaps you feel a change in your energy, up or down, perhaps not. This is interpreted as leading and causing. But this demonstrates what many of us have noted, it's the other way around.

Because your body is operating more of it's own volition, given whatever may or may not be triggering it. Behavioural change is merely the more outward expression of that underlying shift.

And that's how it should be reversed too. Your body should lead and your behaviour, the outcome of that underlying shift. Instead, we've been stuck with the punitive disordered system by the reign of fanatics.

Taryn's reversal completes a perfect symmetrical arc of weight gain and loss, that is the same backwards as it is forwards. That makes total sense. This has always been a MIA factor when it comes to metabolic function. Instead, the obsessive focus on attacking adipose tissue, doesn't match the smooth holistic spontaneous gaining process.

Using the body's ability to alter its own function efficiently is the only worthwhile and viable way to not only alter people's metabolic function. But also to treat metabolically related ailments and even mental health conditions, without drugs. There's even a possibility of it leading to ways of reversing certain processes that create organ damage. And less importantly, their weight. 

Finding ways to direct this with our own minds would make it accessible. Look at the mess created by using food and activity as the route. Look who it leaves out, those most in need. It is and always has been an indulgent disgrace. 

Some have asked, what if a slim person has the same metabolic problems as a fatter person? How could they benefit from this kind of underlying shift? Our idea of conflating weight with function is suspect. Probably, the slim person's symptoms would improve, without them losing any real weight. Or perhaps just minimal few pounds.

As that aspect of their function has not been invoked, there would be little or nothing to alter.

Human metabolic function is like a recording studio with all its faders and buttons. Adjusting the various switches makes the same musical arrangement sound different.

It' s like part of a menu of effects, dependent on individual make up, circumstance and whether the condition is genetically inspired or more environmentally prompted. Or all. I suspect those who get to the highest weights have a multiple combination of factors. Genetics, on circumstance, on individual responsiveness, on environment and etc.,

The point is, this reversal is gentle and unobtrusive so it will not be destructive in the way the calorie restriction , attack tissue model has been.

People deserve nothing less.

Professional Niceties

Asking the question;

Are doctors nicer to patients who aren't fat? 

Is all very well, but it's really about maximizing their ability to practice medicine.The problem with their professional sulk about fatness, is that it can get in the way of their professionalism.

It also reduces their own satisfaction, it must be galling to have contrived to feel someone's taking up your time unnecessarily. That only adds to fat patients original sin;

......doctors are trained to deal with immediate medical problems that have specific solutions, like a pill to lower blood pressure or emergency treatment for a heart attack. But obesity is a far more complex problem that isn’t easy to solve, and that can be frustrating to doctors. “When we can’t fix what is broken we tend to behave badly,” he [Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin University Prevention Research Center] said.

It's been noted. Along with seeing the bulk of patients as more difficult to examine, handle and perform surgery on apart from the highly profitable weight loss surgery where there's understandably a more "we shall overcome" attitude.

We've so taken for granted the emollient of professional sympathy, that it seemed just to be about being nice.

I was brought up with the idea that doctors would treat murderous dictators, serial killers, anyone, about all, it was a case of ethics. They'd sworn an oath to uphold this. That meant something. Compare that with their resentful fat phobia.  

It should also be remembered that this is not about "general attitudes". The people in white coats helped sell this to the public on the back of their unquestioned gravitas. Whilst I have little patience with fat phobia, 'blaming' fatness on the fat public and fat phobia on slim hoi polloi is a pretence I'm prepared to enter into.

This is a subtler aspect of the attempt to set up the mythical fat v slim battle, many in authority are desperate for, to obscure their own cynical misbehaviour.

Divide and conquer, always.  Slim folk from around your way, did not invent 'obesity/obese'. And we all know  that.

Amour Propre, Amour de Soi

Amour propre is the self esteem that comes through the esteem of others. It's also more popularly refers to the image or reputation for esteem associated with those with higher status in society. In essence though, it refers to regard one gets from others and then feels oneself.

Armour de soi is literally, love of self. It is innate self regard. We are born that way. Our regard for ourselves is fused intimately with our existence and is indivisible from our awareness of that. Just like other living creatures. It doesn't occur to us to not like ourselves.

It doesn't actually feel like romantic love, which is often a false and hyped up idea of what love can be when mixed with sexual desire and some other stuff we won't go into here. 

Human beings especially seem to be made up of both inside out and outside in self love. Though it seems to be observable in (other) animal kingdoms.

What we learn is not so much to hate ourselves, or even to love ourselves. We learn to put things in between our inner self love and develop an armour propre. And they either support or cause our ability to heart ourselves to implode.

Too many clauses in the way of what just was, before.

We do need to learn to defend that self love from attacks not all of which by any means come in hate. And moreover, when the inevitable fall from the grace of self love is pressing enough, we must learn to repair and restore it.

It is a strange feature of our modern era that amour propre seems to have outstripped the latter to such a degree that the latter is dismissed by some as almost mythical, 'fake' or even oppressive imposition. This is a product of many influences mainly commercial inclined. Here provides a steady stream of routes in which to love oneself from the outside in.

Fat people who have other social value are learning what those of us accorded less all round have had to realise sooner. That a revival of the amour de soi is indeed possible and inevitable once ones amour propre is trashed by all and sundry.

You can see some of the above reactions are what can occur when the fat, nor other imperative isn't present. The cultivation of amour de soi feels somewhat artificial, irritating, if not down right vulgar.

Some of it is class. Middle class self regard is rigidly regulated from the outside, in the groupings they form together. Amour de soi, associated as it is with our original 'wild' animalistic lower status can feel almost grotesque in comparison to the subtle internalized cues of bourgeois esteem.

Self love, does not have to be perfect, nor can it be. We humans have not evolved to that point. If you participate in society's built more on AP, you can't expect to transcend that wholly. But changing the balance in favour of A de S is perfectly legitimate and does not need to be justified or even explained to anyone who doesn't feel the need for it.

That's sometimes how it is when you're not seeing things from the same angle.

This is reality

Perhaps my mind is just being belligerently twisty, because I still find the idea of fatness or my weight "impacting on my health" profoundly ill conceived and uninvolving.

Now before anyone gets any funny ideas. I am not an essentialist when it comes to weight. Whether you're speaking of fat to thin, some people would struggle to be anything but the weight they are, fatter or thinner. The main body of people probably fall in between.

Nor do I identify as fat. I see myself as a human like any other, which means the 'obesity' construct cramps my style and I'm going to keep saying that. And keep using every possible opportunity not to play down to it. 

It's entirely possible that if I'd grown up in radically different atmosphere I might not have either been fat, or been fat at such an early age. Who cares? That is not my life this is. My body is this actual real version, not a mythological, theoretical one.

My body is fat, it cannot be attacking some not existing version of itself. It cannot be disease unto itself. Pathogens can attack our systems internally, cancer is a cluster of rogue cells, needing a joint replacement comes from disease or wear and tear which attacking the integrity of the joint. Even the dubious, my neurosis is an illness bull pucky, works in a way "my body as disease" just doesn't. It cannot fit any cogent disease model.

Fatness can only be a symptom of something underlying in the context of me.

If my health takes a turn because of a metabolic issue like diabetes, then that is down to how said function is working. That cannot define those who weigh the same as I do any more than being part of  the highest suicide rate group means all have a higher suicide rate. My body as disease, my character as the pathogen or causal factor, doesn't scan. Not as science anyway.

There is a different balance of reaction between internal and external factors. Some people always know something about themselves, even though it is no where openly at least, in the environment around them.

Others do not know that same thing about themselves and are happily ignorant until they encounter it openly, outside themselves. Then they can never again not know. Like non dominant forms of sexuality.

If it was the case that we totally know ourselves regardless of whether anyone else backs it up or not, then it would have been impossible for fat people to doubt our own experience of calorie restriction fail.

It would have been impossible to ever assert anything different. And that would have made the delusion of fat haters hard to establish, let alone sustain. I realise I'm saying in a way that our willingness to dismiss our own experience has permitted and encouraged others to do the same.

But that's the truth for fat people just as much as it is the truth for others, whether it sounds victim blamey or not.