Disappointed Researchers suggest Findings are Underweight

It's instructive to see weight research from another angle. Far more cautious, detailed and careful in  reporting. Its pronouncements, conclusions, assessments and speculations are a cut above bariatrics *ouch*.

It's refreshing. The study in question features 2 million people and uses GP's patient records of dementia diagnosis matched with BMI.

It found those with a bmi of under 20 [underweight is usually under 18.5] in middle age, have the greatest number of dementia diagnosis of all weight categories. That progressively lowers as you go up in size, the lowest have a bmi of 40 +.

Looking at the headline, "Underweight people face significantly higher risk of dementia, study suggests." Most if not all the familiar things occur, this time with an unusual distance. Comparative or relative rather than absolute risk, for each individual. 

You can't help noticing again what a blunt tool weight is as a way of assessing individual risk. Epidemiology is the start of science, not that itself, telling you what can look for, not necessarily what you're looking at.

What may be on your mind is the much touted previous insistence that fat people have the higher risk. That should tell you about the abuse of that term in this crusade. It continually uses theoretical risk collated from other theoretically heightened risk factors to produce its hypetastic endgame.

The use of research as thinspiration puts intolerable pressure on plain fact.

Authors responses should be noted by those usually snowed by @besity;

Prof Stuart Pocock, one of the authors, said: “Our results suggest that doctors, public health scientists, and policymakers need to rethink how to best identify who is at high risk of dementia. We also need to pay attention to the causes and public health consequences of the link between underweight and increased dementia risk which our research has established. 

The latter highlighted is especially telling, why not causes and treatments/cures? Public health consequences are fine, but that particular omission smacks of a pre-text to interfere in other people's lives. I hope that isn't the case. It does say this is an avenue for research, but what kind though?

When a frame is established, others can be framed by it. Precedent is used to legitimize.

On a lighter note, hur, hur, we're helpfully told this doesn't mean being fat is okay-we may not live long enough to avoid dementia given other risks. In addition, we're given an anti-dote to the logical fallacies we're usually expected to pretend aren't.

Some things you never hear- From lead author Dr Nawab Qizilbash;

We haven’t been able to find an explanation......We are left with this finding which overshadows all the previous studies put together. The question is whether there is another explanation for it. In epidemiology, you are always left with the question of whether there is another factor.

*Sob*

Usually that spot's filled with eat less, do more, healthy lifestyles blah, blah, blah.  Can you notice how stupid that makes them sound? In this they actually sound like they're thinking.

Dr Simon Ridley, from Alzheimer’s Research UK, said further work is needed. “This study doesn’t tell us that being underweight causes dementia, or that being overweight will prevent the condition,” he said.

The comments too are worth reading for the number of critiques of the same faulty logic usually advanced when the subject is fat. You'll see those same criticisms dismissed when we resume normal programming......

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.

Hunger is the Impulse, Eating the Response

Certain things immediately spike your attention, then fade to the back of your mind. They're so ubiquitous that though you keep tripping over them, you get into the habit of pressing on past them.

Going through a list of psychologists, one was quoted as expressing a widely held view-that eating is a behaviour. It's a sensibility straight from calorie/weight hypothesis: Weight as a direct product of your calorie intake minus your calorie output.

This comes from assuming hunger is some kind thought because we become aware of it via our conscious minds. This is an error of perception, as they say. A bit like assuming pain is a thought because you become aware of it in your head also.

Hunger is a collation of sensory data coming from all areas of your body, through its nervous circuits. That is what ends up in your brain. There's when you become aware of it. Hunger is an impulse, and I don't mean as in "impulse buy," I mean electrical activity transmitted through your nerves.

You know the music you hear from the radio doesn't come from inside the radio, don't you! That would be like the error we make with hunger, assuming its inside the box, when its mainly picking it up what is sent there.

Saying eating is a behaviour is not wholly inaccurate by strict definition, but it's misleading. It makes more sense to think of eating as a response [to hunger]. We can't feed ourselves through our own bodies. We are designed to run on energy extracted from food therefore our response to hunger has to be acted out. But that cannot be read completely as if its independent of that impulse. It is not useful and actually quite disruptive at times to cast eating as a personal decision apropos of emeaushun.

There might be a slight tangle in the difference between professional and layman's use of the term behaviour. "Manner of conducting oneself" is how we generally think of it. That fits in with the calories in/out which posits eating as acting out a whim. The psychological definition is more technical;

1. the aggregate of all the responses made by an organism in any situation
2. a specific response of a certain organism to a specific stimulus or group of stimuli

That's more like it, a bit different in emphasis to our notion of behaviour as some acting out of conscious will. It could apply just as easily to going to sleep, but no one thinks sleep is simply a conscious decision just because we have some angles for conscious regulation of it.

With something like breathing, you  respond to inhaling by exhaling, automatically. If you had to somehow act out exhalation part, would it make sense for you to see that as disconnected from inhaling?

Yes, it would be a behaviour in terms of response to stimuli, but you could not disconnect it from being a response triggered by inhalation. Whatever triggers or stems that. Could be the rhythm of your breathing, or in the case of those with certain allergies, pollen /some other nasal irritant, could be shock, anxiety, concentration, awe, pleasure, etc.,

Vital, inbuilt, anatomically generated impulses cannot be controlled in the way having abstract thoughts can. We attempt to regulate or should I say, re-regulate them. Because they are already regulating themselves. They have their own rhythm and self-sustaining momentum. Unless we're aiming to re-establish/reboot that, what we end up seeking to do is interrupt often disrupt this regulation trying to alter the outcome of it more to our liking.

Is important to grasp that with restrictive eating, we are disrupting something that's already designed to regulate itself.

'Obesity' Construct Fans are Not the Ones to Shape a Child's Sense of Self

Parents know instinctively that 'obesity' is some kind of attack on children's unworldliness. That it will mark them out for another kind of lesser, sidelined existence. Understandably, they're hardly drawn to this.

@besity fanatics aren't trying to give up though. Lindy West rightly encourages parents not to permit such infractions on those they love for sorties of cynical self-interest.

To protect and nurture a child's nascent self respect, trust and esteem, even if that means disobeying a largely unquestioned clique. Only in the case of the most worthless parents, do adults not have vivid memories of parents trying to shield them from the more painful realities of life.

Children trust their parents unblinkingly to steer them on the right course. To allow their degradation by those who don't matter is to slap that loving trust right back in their faces. There's no need to sell them out in this way. Not to those who's only interest is to justify their dubious attentions.  

These people are nothing if not solipsists. Parents failure to see their beloved progeny as an 'epidemic' is clearly a source of frustration for arrogant @besity wallahs who think anyone should do whatever they say, whenever they say it.  How we fat people have spoilt them.

The misapplied premise here is if you cannot recognize the "problem" you cannot put into place the(ir) solution. That only scans when either the diagnosis or solution are correct, can be implemented are functional and haven't already failed.

In this case, falling short on all counts is where its at. The issue is, folks feel weight needs to become reversible for anyone who needs or wants it. That mean metabolic function needs to be changed, in order to change the outcome it produces. We've tried assaulting that outcome, it hasn't worked because that very metabolic function regulates back to its norm.

So get on with pursuing that, through greater knowledge. Do you see how that doesn't involve imprisoning children in demeaning constructs?

And if you wish to feed children you have charge of properly-then do it as was stopped when government policy 'liberated' nutritional standards. If you wish to teach them to cook again, do it. Ditto, teaching them to grow things.

All and more were in place before and went during this very same 'obesity' crusade. That sums up its worth, aptly. The crusade has been useless in implementing its own strategy for children. It's had its chance-during it, school playing fields? Gone. The roads children used to play on? Taken over by private cars.

Even fast food etc., giants got into children's hospitals, all during the reign of @besity. No one in their right mind, let alone those in charge of children would let another round of this fantasy continue.

Branding their child @bese isn't going make up for that. People don't need to see their children through the crusade's ugly eyes. Those grifting on it themselves need to recognize they have neither the will, ability nor indeed, the inclination to implement a society based around restricting and pointless expenditure of calories -which doesn't even work anyway! Face the reality of who you are and what your society is and get on with a strategy that makes sense for that.

Aim for healthiness for all children, regardless of class, race etc., And separately, through objective endeavour, find genuine ways of affecting metabolic function for those who genuinely need help-who won't get that from social engineering.

Give people the knowledge they want and let them decide what they do and don't wish to eat.  And get out of damaging their children for your own ends.

One of the reasons why I never imagined things would come to this current state of barmy hysteria is I never thought people would be prepared to be this openly abusive to children, in what was supposedly an overly child-friendly atmosphere. By that I mean, child-friendliness had assumed some real social status.

Consider my surprise when the crusade was able to roll over that with its fetid air of pseudo-science. It took me a while to notice this had revealed that  beneath the"friendliness" lurked a real resentment, if not anger with children's blameless status.

Child @besity became a vehicle to through off the demands of child-friendliness without a loss of social kudos. Any excesses of which come out of adult vanity and its attendant parental competitiveness, in the first place.

Being able to finally blame children without quarter has been a real catharsis for many and not just the usual piss 'n' vinegar types who resent anyone and anything they feel is getting a more generous judgement than they.

The sheer aggression in  the child@besity and the determination nail children with it, is motivated by a sublimated anger towards children, a wish to topple them from their pedestal, often by those who did most to put them on there in the first place-for social kudos. Seems the demands of that has gone too far for them.

This ugliness is in stark contrast to the way high status children are valued, prompted and emboldened-anyone falling for this mess must be either very desperate or very defeated.

I'd add to LW's words, regardless of your child's size/weight-reverse your learned oversensitivity toward weight. Re-train your mind to become calm again around this area, use the way you feel about height as a marker. This de-sensitization is also a way of beginning to tackle an eating disorder. And no, that isn't co-incidence.

The first and enduring theme of @besity wallahs is to over-sensitize your nervous (system's) response to any mention of weight, by continually pushing it to a heightened response and you to maximum hysteria. Repeating that eventually leads that to become a more permanent reaction. Children especially can pick up on this from you, regardless of your words.

The great thing though is that you can use the same process in reverse.

• Get yourself into a state of calm first, then think of weight and seek to maintain that feeling. Don't worry if you aren't able to remain calm at first, keep repeating it.

• Drop all your own fat hating behaviours and thoughts, characterise all people as people. @besity blocks your ability to recognize you are talking about and attacking people. 

• Especially drop "child/hood @besity", its a worthless and disgraceful construct. And do not also, permit any unwise professionals to use it on your child/ren either. Make them address your child as a being, not as a mass.

Once you can remain calm and cool around the subject of weight, you'll probably be able to figure out what you want to say to your or someone else's child. Make sure you let them know they are whole beings. Teach them to be aware of and reject any attempt to compartmentalize themselves-for one thing it discourages ease of movement by for example; undermining a child's sense of self connection, their calm and confidence around the idea and reality of moving.

• Encourage/strengthen/preserve their sense of self connection, i.e. get them to express how they feel when they are show physical ability/enjoyment-from the trivial to important. Try and get them to retain those as memories to draw from, building up a store of positive feelings about their physical presence. 

In the end it comes down to a choice between your child and a crusade that's had its chance and failed.

Cancer!!!

Now I've got your attention......

Back in the day that'd be, "Seeeeex!!!!" Made you look. In these i-net days of jiggy at your fingertips, that's over. Now, it's the death part of sex 'n' death that really gets attention.

As I'm sure you've heard, @besity is erm- the terrible health threat/deadly disease-those raging loudest about it, don't wish to solve or cure. Remarkable. Oh they may pose otherwise, convincingly to some it seems. In action though, they can barely be arsed.

Insisting on a route that doesn't work, the mere implementation of which goes against their own highly favoured selves and their denied human impulses. Endless hypothesizing around a defunct ideology that refuses, no cannot-let's not mock the afflicted- generate any real progress.

Lies gives it away more than anything. If something is a disease that will be discovered because disease is a real entity, not a metaphor. The drive to fake disease, i.e. alcoholism, drug addiction etc., came from lay quacks. Not from actual professionals trained to deal in and uncover objective fact. 

Take cancer, no please do. Being fat is said to increase the risk of certain cancers. ....According to this, such knowledge has been uncovered in the last ten years.

Rather than admitting they don't know why. To account for this, the much adored go-to ideology is pressed into service;

• adipose tissue generates oestrogen, yet oestrogen in the form of contraceptive pills can't raise your weight, at all, no never.

There's some more;

• @beses often have more insulin. This could cause cancer in selective sites, rather than others of the same kind, because..... why....?

• Adipose cells produce (other) hormones which stimulate or inhibit cell growth [what like metabolic function or something?] ....i.e. leptin [aaahhh, leptin]. That's more abundant in @beses, so it must be up to no good. 

• @beses are inflammed. No not the state brought about by constant provocative accusations, endless threats of doom, social isolation, unemployment, plus death threats, but the "low-level inflammation" that @beses have, apparently. £tc.,

It's toxic adipose.  Adipose that decides to become toxic in fat bodies. Like you, its a baad fat.  Do you know they've named something called a "sick fat syndrome"? Yeah, that's where they want to go with this.

What annoys me about all this is not more of this or that chemical that is said to create this or that effect, it's the insistence on their pre-determined fix for no good reason but, who cares if they do? Adipose cells must be the baddies, because that's based on the almighty premise that adipose is iccccck. 

You'd think they'd have noticed all this long before. Where the body is affected to the good or ill is most likely to tell you something about the nature of your freely chosen focus of inquiry. Collectivizing fat people indiscriminately then individualizing from that is it gives an unrealistic picture to all fat people, regardless of their health status.

If you did the same thing to all under bmi 25, you'd have a similar kind of outcome. Sick people who are acceptably-weighted are sick people. It is not associated-with-weight even if they are the lightest on the size spectrum. It is defined by what's happening in their bodies, which is as it should be, it makes more sense. It's useful.

Fat people with or without disease are deemed the same, leading to the odd premise that all fat people would be healthy, if not for being fat. Illness and disease then have to be regarded nonsensically as "obesity-related," as they are both never absent nor present, but somehow, both. Yes, the paper below presents 'obesity-related' as above an estimated level of disease-we know all about @besity wallahs and their estimates.

Instead of clearing up this conceptual breakdown, we get "evidence" of how even if a fat person isn't sick, they are, because they will be in 5-20 years. Not meaning they'll actually be unwell but more will score on an index of associated-with risk factors.

Nor does this lead to where it should-let's move heaven and earth to resolve this scientifically. No, all this leads to, do what's already failed. Or let's change society. Oh you want to change society? Well you go ahead and do that, in the mean time. Save the lives you claim will be lost.

When I first saw this collection of cancers, apart from this I thought, what could possibly be the link between them? Mainly, parts of the digestive, excretory and reproductive systems?! Apart from oesophagus-which is connected to and has similar tissue to the stomach and post-menopausal breast that's mostly in the lower part of the trunk. Is there some underlying connection? If so, is it direct or theoretical like the link between those nerves and the brain?

In both men and women, body-mass index was also significantly associated with higher rates of death due to cancer of the esophagus, colon and rectum, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, and kidney; the same was true for death due to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Significant trends of increasing risk with higher body-mass-index values were observed for death from cancers of the stomach and prostate in men and for death from cancers of the breast, uterus, cervix, and ovary in women.

[Breast is of course, post-menopause, pre-menopause it lowers the risk. Watch out, the latter appears to "promote obesity."]

I couldn't see anything obvious, I mean, reproductive and digestive? So I figured, whatev's. Till I happened to be reading a book I had little inclination toward.......Future Mind by Michio Kaku then BAM!

• The hypothalamus. This regulates body temperature, our circadian rhythm, hunger, thirst and aspects of reproduction and pleasure.

Now, I do not wish to jump to conclusions buuut, the hypothalamus has form when it comes to weight. Amongst fat people, there seem to more who may have some kind of compromised hypothalamic function, I know I have. Which is exactly the point-unusual function collects more among the outer reaches of either end of an active trait. 

So @besity wallahs love to keep it on greed and laziness. Actually finding stuff out makes this about something, the biggest danger of all is the risk of actually finding something out.

Lack of Vitamin D is more associated with Diabetes than being Fat

This is intriguing. Apparently those measured with low levels of Vitamin D are at greater risk of developing diabetes, regardless of their weight. It has the novelty of being an even greater risk for diabetes than those flung around 'obesity'.

The body uses exposure to sunlight-on the skin-to make vitamin D.

It reminds me of a guy who's done pretty well for himself. He grew up with sister's who made him stay in and do his homework, when he just wanted to go out and hang out in the streets with his friends. Some of them didn't do so well.

He went on to gain a degree and has a career in public doing things he likes.

He's also a fat diabetic, though he could by this token just as easily be a slim diabetic. The dilemmas of health and the sacrifices demanded to aspire to higher and to get there. As with life in general, we will all have to make some sacrifice to our health, to ourselves at some point, to get what we want.

Indeed, to prioritize health above all else would look very strange if not immoral. Who's to say, a feckless abandonner of a family is not preserving their mental or financial health? Who's not to say the incompetent have said on some level, this far and no farter? They don't always say the good die young for nothing.

In all this boneheaded @besity malarkey, we rarely touch on this. Because its comforting to have do this and go with health, do this and go against health.

Should this man's sister's have left him alone to hang out and maybe not so qualified, but perhaps more acceptable in weight and maybe not even diabetic [until perhaps later anyway]? What's the priority then?

I know a similar family where there seemed to be some tendency toward type 2. Some in the family had it. They too were a Black family whose parents had done menial jobs and worked very hard. The children turned out to be; social workers, teachers, lawyers and so forth. Success stories.

One of the undercover impulses driving the 'obesity' cult is blocking of aspiration. You see it in the way they attack celebrities who are fat and successful. The life-sucking calorie restriction dieting plus the ego desiccating 'obesity' branding promises to take the edge of what can be needed to fulfill potential. Though all the presentation is otherwise. What's needed to come up from outside, from underneath is belief and stamina. That comes from practice and application. Not running around half starved.

The old pulling up the ladder. Maybe that's part of the extent to which people succumbed so readily to the 1%. If they'd spent more time paying attention to what those above them in class were up to and less to keeping out others below them socially.....

I'm also not sure about the old arrow of causality, does susceptibility toward diabetes mean your body is less able to make Vit D? Or is it that less of it does something that undermines metabolic function? What I do know though is that what is deemed healthy for one area of your body contradicts healthy in others and that's rarely mentioned in the kindergarten level-simplistic calories in/out healthism.

Rape Culture

Now this is interesting. I do not find the OP remotely convincing-in context [scroll down comments] or out. Why? How long have you got? I'm not really in the mood to play gumshoe, the whole thing has a rather unpleasant air.

There's something in the tone and style, the way the 'husband' is described especially sounds like a he wrote it, to expound on his own feelings. "She" isn't really there. The one time "she" mentions any feeling of her own is: " I just cant help but feel like I am the one who should change?"

All this rapiness would be over, if you would just change [change back from the change you changed from] and stick to the rule book. We can't do anything about the misogynist patriarchy, but we can do something about @besity.

Unless this is from c.1860, few contemporary women would speak this way about anything, not their husband-no matter how wonderful. And the explosion is out of place too;

I exploded at him, and he promised he will try to start having sex with me again.  He is getting a prescription filled to ensure arousal and we are setting up some counseling sessions.

You "exploded" with your complete absence of feelings did you? "....he promised he will try to start having sex with me again." ? "ensure arousal." Ugh, no. Why would a person wish to force intimacy with someone who doesn't wish to be intimate with them? What possible joy could it give you to know someone doesn't feel that way about you?

It makes me feel queasy just thinking about the idea of it. Frankly, if this woman was real, she'd sack anyone's desire.

It ends more oddly with;

I should go dust off my book of rules, or I should find someone else who doesnt consider making love to me, a chore.

The "husband" doesn't find "making love" a chore, he doesn't consider it at all!  Stick to your theme son! Or should I say sons, sounds like more than one little mind +  help-went into this.

There's a persistent urge among a certain kind of internet dwelling (male) fat phobe to try infiltrate-they love ze cloak and dagger- any space inhabited mainly by fat women. In their minds this espionage is personally fulfilling and attacks a great threat. It supposedly attacks the credibility of FA which should demoralize those attached to it.

It's one of the reasons why it can feel unfriendly to those new to it. People can be wary.

I was thinking this morning about how sockpuppety/astroturfy many discussions of 'obesity' tend to be. Seriously, there's too often a real scent of contrivance about the same old tedious non-discussions and ritualistic ranting. Other times there's just as much hate as ever but there's a reality and life there and real things get said by real people.

Whenever there are some remotely interesting findings...... tumbleweed. No comments. There's little real interest in 'obesity', there's little to keep the attentions-it's an intellectual cul-de-sac, over bar the shouting.

@besity has always called itself a "Cinderella" subject because of its obsolescence and bankrupt constructs. What gets people excited is someone in the position of Aunt Sally, plus the fact that many people restrict/ feel they should be restricting their intake. This creates a psychological or real hangry rage that can be re-directed into attacking others. Until calorie restriction was generalized as a weight and health regulator for all, 'obesity' didn't pick up steam.

Suffice to say, I do not think anyone should be coerced into sexual relations, end of story. No one should be taking drugs to replace a desire they don't feel not for anybody. In real case of loss of desire, for someone you adore. Time can make the difference, if you love someone that much it maybe a question of a period of adjustment.

But that must be in an atmosphere of accepting the person's feelings, or lack of.