Fat self love does normals no favours

Same drivel straight out of the lucky country from one Susie O'Brien who should be ashamed to take the money.

Subtitled 'Big women the latest fashion craze'

This farticle proceeds to show yet again that the crisis is directed not at fat people, it merely uses and abuses us. It refers to Melbourne Fashion Week which used models of size 14-18 on the catwalk.

The writer uses the term 'stick insects' to describe thin models- this and other digs are supposed to convince us she is not relentlessly jealous of thin women because she projects on to them a moral purity they didn't ask to represent. Memo to fat haters who attack the thin, you are not fooling anyone there either.

This is about making the 'normals' feel better about themselves, whether they ask for it or not, because fat and slender alike exist to surround the accetable and sacrifice themselves to make the impossible happen. Making those who decided to make their self esteem weight based feel at peace. Piece of advice, base your self worth on your existence, not the number on the scale or the size of your butt if you want a chance at that. If you don't, we cannot save you by hating ourselves.

Many commentators have ably shot it to muck as it deserves, but I just had to pick up on a few points.

WHY are we suddenly lavishing love on the larger ladies

Sorry, but who's we?

Allow me to explain, we fat people are the ones who are deciding to fully reclaim what is our birthright and that of every citizen, self respect.

It's ours to to set aside or to nuture. We believed that we should succeed at insane weight loss schemes bandied about. When we did not, we thought we were in the wrong and as moral people, we felt badly toward ourselves about it.

We now know better.

Our self esteem is not yours to bestow.

Try hating people who increasingly doesn't give a rat arse, I think you'll find it hard work, something it wasn't before, because we were doing the work for you. Expect that to change.

While these women might make us feel better about our bulging butts and guts, the truth is, few women over a size 14 are in a healthy weight range.

Staggering, you think other people's bodies exist as a tool to regulate your own?This is the essense of the crisis, it was not designed to be directed straight at fat people, it merely uses and abuses us to keep people like Ms O'Brien in line, and they are too dimwitted to see it, because they think they are at the top of the hierarchy. Come alive Susie.

So much for her earlier asinine attempt at concern trolling, she and the rest are not remotely interested in fat people on any level except as part of their own agenda existing to serve her ends. Those of validating her position and serving her as a 'motivator' to avoid the horror that will occur if she ceased her self abuse. I use that term, because of this kind of thing;

Losing weight is hard work. It takes sacrifice and effort. As a mother of three in my late 30s with a new gym membership, I know this first-hand.

You volunteered, you hate what you are doing to yourself and thing it entitles you to direct others to despise themselves. If you don't like what you're doing to yourself, stop. If you won't stop, stew in your own hate, don't look to void it on those who have no say in what you do to yourself.

It's much easier to accept the pro-fat manifesto than hit the treadmill.

If 'pro-fat' is a reference to FA, then I'd say is it really? Because I couldn't care less whether it's easier or harder to be an abject dupe of healthism or not.

From what I've seen of the poverty of intelligence or thoughtfulness from most phobes, they care only about representing things that serve their delusional fantasies of salvation and ever lasting life through the punitive impositions they inflict on themselves.

So easier from whichever vantage point?

Depends on your chosen beliefs.

Why does the body return to the start?

Why does the body tend to return to it's previous size? I'm not convinced its due to pre-determination or genes. How else would people diet themselves (sometimes way) up the scale?

Our body's definitely fighting stubbornly to remain a certain size and to get back to it as quickly as possible if we manage to prise it away from their. Or rebound.

The theory is that we are all destined to weigh within a certain range of about 20-30 lbs set point theory, put v. simply I feel, makes the mistake of conflating rebound with genetic pre determination, they are seperate things. The rebound and genetic weight that is.

Our bodies return to our pre-weight loss diet weight, because they are programmed to, not because of our weight genes instructing them to. There are other process where the body behaves similarly. When you donate blood, it replenishes itself, you could even liken it to when you hold your breath you lungs seek to refill etc.,

In this case it may well be more related to whatever keeps many of us more or less the same weight, slim or fat year after year. The force stopping us from gaining, is the other side of what's stopping us from retaining deficit.

It's just no-body expected it to happen with fat cells. Why is fascinating. Far more so than a set point theory of genetic kismet.

Thin (thigh) shaming

The story that thin thighs purport to be a sign of poorer heart health has gained some traction over the week. I caught this particular version via bfb .

My first thought on hearing it was the same wariness that I've learned from the deluge of fat=degeneracy in all forms, stories that we're usually subjected to.

One of the things I bear in mind in all this, is the fact that healthism is a cult that seeks always to recruit.

Everyone.

Regardless.

To see it as fat against thin would be a mistake, it's as much against thin people, just in a different way.

It seeks to unsettle everyone and everyone must be on a diet, or a 'lifestyle' because dieting, fuels hatred of fat and fatness. Without it, people tend to remain unpredictably ambivalent to fatness as a hate category.

The key measurement to worry about, remember you should never consider when you can worry, is less than 60 cms about 23.6 ins.

“Typically a 23.6-inch thigh on a female would be a size 6 to 8,” said Greg Benson, president of the International Sports and Fitness Trainers Association. A woman with thighs that size might be 5-foot-1 and weigh about 135 pounds,

Really? Because 5ft 1ins 135 lbs gives you a bmi of 25.5, which would make you technically overweight.

So even though you are thin enough to compromise your heart, you aren't thin enough to be considered acceptably weighted.

But the point here is the original purpose of the obesity and the crisis, to recruit the 'worried well' into a belief system that venerates a proto anorexic lifestyle.

The point is to disrupt your peace, so that you can channel that psychic rage to a target.

Fat people.

Teaching you how to hate others, teaches you how to hate yourself. Training you to bully others into worry, teaches you how to do the same for yourself, it's like an overspill.

For similar reasons, I take no comfort in the fact that thin thighs might be something of concern, I don't look to reassurance or worry from health study findings in the popular press.

So do yourself and the rest of us a favour, look down at you skinny thighs with love, stroke them and caress them. And don't hate them.

Try thinking about how it would be, if your hips were joined straight to your knees.

Eating is necessary

Are we all agreed on that?

Eating is a vital body process. Without food we will die. Why is it so hard for some people to just accept? In some ways its a victory over generations of want, but it is still disturbing the way people seem to resent the fact they have to eat. As if its a sign of weakness something they ought to rise above. Like it's the new sex or something.

Starvation is spiritual eating is earthy and of the flesh, bestial even. We have to be taking a very wrong turn when we seek to be ashamed of what we need to exist.

Walnut sized stomach

Reading this article called rather eerily, "full without food" I finally realised something that I'd not before crystallised clearly.

Gastric bypass surgery proves it is known that fat people are telling the truth. We are mostly lead to believe by the medical profession and others that being fat is about eating too much, more than your body needs. We are told that all fat people have to do is eat a little less over a period of time, the body will use up the excess and voila, fat becomes thin.

Eating too much means that our stomachs should be swollen and enlarged by this excess.
If so, why not gastric reduction? Reducing the size of the stomach to normal, or halve at most?

Because they know full well this won't work. It is also incidentally one of the reasons why so many go on crash diets, not solely to get the unpleasantness over and done with as quickly as possible-although, who could blame them if they did? It's because that is the only way a heck of a lot of people can see any weight loss of any kind or significance, such is the ability of the body to adjust to any calorie reduction less than palpable starvation.

Instead of gastric reduction, it is gastric bypass, the stomach is both reduced virtually bypassed by being reduced to the size of a walnut and "re plumbed" lower down the small intestine to induce malabsorption.

If what we are told is true or they believed it, this would kill a person, as they would starve to death. It's not as if its a twin op with a scheduled reversal after the required weight is lost.

And it's not as if this surgically induced crash diet is temporary, it is designed to be permanent, meaning that not only do they know the patient will not starve to death, they know this crash diet will maintain the patient in a state of semi starvation to try and retain any discernible weight loss.

It could be argued that they expect the stomach to stretch somewhat, but they warn people to keep their intake low, so they expect this intake level to be doable. The expectations of the operation are reflected in the quoted title, you are expected to transcend your hunger a bit like this .

Even though most people do not lose that much weight considering what has been done to them- Sue has a great post on this article including details about statistics and outcomes- this kind of operation is considered a success, which is funny because a fat person manages to lose weight using diet and exercise still remains fat. It would not be considered a success by many.

As usual, the authorities cannot judge themselves by the standards they set for us- seeing the results of such a drastic solution as crap would be too upsetting when its righteous surgeons, why, it might make them feel bad, why punish them like fat people?


We strong fatties can congratulate ourselves, we are made of sterner stuff so can take this level of judgement and deal with the 'pain', more so if we are children apparently.

Another thing I'm reminded of reading the chemical analysis of processes of eating and digestion described, is the comparison with observing brain chemistry/activity in say a MRI. Looking at the brains of depressed people and saying, we are seeing the chemical composition of the disease, depression. The unresolved question is are we seeing a manifestation of a brain malfunction or a mind's depressed mood in action?

There seems to be an element of this with observing eating;

It seems the gut normally secretes hormones that make us feel hungry or full, and bypass surgery ramps up production of the ones that make us feel full.

I wouldn't be surprised would you? If you cut the organ which receives and digests food to the point incompatible with that purpose, your body will try to protect itself from starvation by purging using an emergency raising of satiety chemicals.

Add to that the fact that eating 'too much' for your reduced organ would likely force vomiting and/or diarrhea, It certainly tries to protect itself similarly during bulimia. Appetite signals often goes on an upward trajectory, as it is a form of starvation by purging. When there is little room, the greater danger comes more from being unable to keep anything down.

Thing is, this kind of information is presented as if it somehow explains 'obesity' rather than merely observing metabolism in action. The truth about what is a virtual stomach amputation is that it is yet another tribute to the remarkable capacities of our bodies for self healing and recovery from the most outrageous abuses we inflict on it.

This whole thing is a case of taking the most drastic possible measures to enforce dieting on the body, and the body's attempts to slowly recover. It's really just the old weight loss diet induced weight loss, then in this case, the extent of  healing needed just slows down rebound.

Weight loss isn't intrinsically painful

Calorie manipulation does though. Weight loss and weight loss dieting are not interchangeable, this what is deemed a useful fiction. Those who promote and use restriction as the answer, feel that it is distracting to think of it as it really is, an assumption of how deliberate weight loss could be achieved.

It's also demoralizing to be enduring the distress and pain of your body, whilst comparing it to the body's painless weight loss.

That happens naturally as a by product of your body's use of energy to fuel itself, it is not a creation of the slimming industry, who do not wish to remind you how bad their theory is. By setting the bar so high on pain and discomfort, people are grateful for any relief a product gives them, no matter how costly.

We can see this with weight loss surgery, people are so relieved that they don't have to use their mind to reduce their stomach to nothing, along with fighting the urge to live (hunger) trying to force themselves to perform activities their body is screaming for them to stop, along with all the calorie counting, fear of rebound, all this means they are prepared to have the function of their organs reduced in exchange for a little less stress.

This shows dietary restriction can be as taxing mentally as it is physically and that's before you consider the addition of familial and societal stigma.

Insisting weight loss is painful encourages people to accept an excess of it, without complaint or question. Its far harder to accept pain and trauma if you see it as a product of the appalling incompetence of dieting, rather than c'est la vie.

We need to reserve the capacity to mentally separate weight loss from weight loss dieting whether we approve of either, or we are playing into the hands of those who insist that pain is necessary to lose weight, when it clearly isn't.

That's an addition of the crude hypothesis of calorie restriction, which lends itself to harshness and violence, it after all takes its inspiration from starvation, the slow excruciating death of a human being due to the absence of food.

Everything we have been taught and know about metabolism is through the distortion of being bent around the energy restriction hypothesis, solely for the purpose of shoring up its plausibility, it needs it as it is a false doctrine, not one built from constant observation of the true picture.  It's a shallow reading, intended as a quick fix solution.

Losing weight should not be intrinsically painful. We have to understand the distress is more the body's response to restriction, not to losing weight which is the by product of what is causing the assault on it.

Self-acceptance

I've never liked the term size acceptance. Fat acceptance is about self acceptance, if you are a fat person, because you are most definitely not supposed to accept yourself if you are a fat person.

Doing so is deemed intrinsically pathological in intent. FA tells the truth, fat people need self esteem the same as any other human.

The argument against that is that humans don't need self respect. Therefore, why should we seek to protect it in our children, and ourselves, hey, maybe we ought to actively disestablish it. Especially if it makes them better people, which it is supposed to in fat children and adults.

Because 'studies' have shown that there are racial and cultural differences in the measures of self esteem amongst especially black women, and black women are fatter some silly people have concluded that self esteem =greater levels of obesity.

Or being an uppity Negress = disease and death.

Therefore if you are a black woman you need to hate yourself more, or it'll be the death of you.

Yeah.

So rather than use terms such as body acceptance or size acceptance, I prefer, self-acceptance, because that's what it's all about.