Disorder is the Norm

Susie Orbach's back with a re-print of her tome, "Fat is a Feminist Issue", pause for applause. To be fair, I've never been able to make myself read it. Despite numerous tries my brain refuses to submit.

At times you have to accept limits.

Not that it matters because other people have and they take their cue for much confident psychobabble projections about what being fat is all about,

Being fat was a protection against sexual attention, but also against being marketed to, having one’s body appropriated as a commercial space. Fat was a statement of solidity in the face of motherhood. It was a defence against competition, a way to dance around the painful establishment of hierarchy within your own gender.

Riiight. Can't say I recognize any of that. The only bell is the hierarchy, but that wasn't so much amongst women as other people in general.

And, am I the only one with a big fluffy question mark shaped cloud floating somewhere in my headspace at the ease with which girls/women are said to act out against themselves physically because of men? I feel most of my reactions to such pressures took the form of overcoming through thought, attitude and mindset-whether in mere contemplation or actuality.

Becoming a feminist is surely indicative.

I honestly do not remember a strong desire to undermine or destroy myself to because of men. And I don't think I'm saying that in any spirit of braggadocio. It's a surprisingly popular meme amongst feminists, even now.

I also have to question the routine equivalence drawn between hyperhunger and anorexia/hunger denial. Everyone (hur, hur) recognizes that it usually takes conscious direction to thwart hunger signalling, as you are interrupting physiologically generated sensation. That is why anorexics are thought of and still defined as exhibiting an excess of control.

If you are claiming fatness (obviously conflated with hyperphagia here) is the same, then you are saying hyperphagiacs are also acting under the influence of an excess of self control. Whilst that can definitely create a chain reaction that raises appetite/hunger, it is not direct choice. It would be more in the direction of being overloaded with responsibility or with averse or difficult emotion, for example.

I will say this again, hyperphagia is not a product of conscious direction. If anyone decides to eat without hunger, which I'm not convinced is much if anything of a thing, that isn't hyperphagia, that is their will! Hyper functioning hunger does not require the conscious direction of anorexia/blocking hunger, as it tends to be body led. Like when a person's blood pressure goes up (and stays up). You don't tell it to go up, it goes up (and stays high) in response to something else.

It's when you try to lower an excess of hunger that it can require a heck of a lot of conscious direction both direct and indirect. It usually takes (usually a lot) more to adjust than anorexia- the direction has changed.

Hunger and its response eating are normal, healthy, life-supporting. No conscious effort is required to produce hunger. Any effort of response tends to be rewarding in some way. Sustained ignoring, blocking, suppressing hunger is abnormal, unhealthy and life-averse, you are swimming against the tide of your nature.

When you stop blocking your hunger, the barrier/s to it can reduce. Underlying normalcy has a chance to reassert and restore itself. When you are seeking to turn your hunger down, its much harder because you are going against the run of your survival instinct, albeit performing in a hyper way. The target is also hidden. You just need to go around it and hope that flows onto letting hunger function reduce on its own.

Orbach's current theme is ‘Not all women used to have eating issues. Now everybody does’. Spot on, though she appears not to grasp why. She just mentions this as something "society" has done to people.

Disorder has been normalised by the promotion of weight loss dieting as a means to achieve weight change. It is disordered and capable of provoking hunger/eating disorders.

Through mandating weight must be altered via this route, the 'obesity' crusade has ensured the continued spread of hunger-denying/energy wasting behaviours, attitudes and disorders. This has increased both them and the body's usual counter-reaction raising hunger.

In those with a susceptability, that can lead to hyperphagia-hypersensitized and/or excessive hunger functioning. Disordered, calorie restriction has just about replaced normal eating, as I knew it would have to if the reign of the 'obesity' construct continued.

It is becoming increasingly rare to hear people eating norally, even rarer for that to be matched with normal attitudes to food. People default to healthist eating  rhetoric about eating, weight, health and diet.

We can see this more clearly in the spread of disorder to men. Alcoholism used to be the primary male eating disorder and men felt it many fathoms beneath them to admit to what they saw as "girly" disorders.

Dietary restriction even without energy restriction can be so inherently unbalancing or disordering, that this mindset can easily set off physiological/psychological disorder merely by imposing appetite constraints. Such as high protein, low-fat/low-carb or whatever.

For instance Muscle Dysmorphia otherwise absurdly termed 'bigorexia' (please), is an example. This is when men who wish to directly increase their muscle mass tip into an unbalanced view of their bodies where they become convinced they are lacking, even with a well developed musculature. 

They feel too small, looking at themselves pointing out a litany of non-existent deficiencies and perceived flaws with vicious self disgust. Sound familiar? This is produced when viewing yourself from the outside in becomes overly dominant. Combine that with a disordered view of eating and/or food and you end up pretty much where we are now.

That is what is being exported.

Given my failure to engage with this seminal work, I've always been somewhat ignorant about what its actually getting at and how it arrived there.

Looking at something on the Women's Therapy Centre, I've finally managed to get a clue.

women would attend meetings at the Women’s Therapy Centre saying they felt fat and unhappy, yet not do anything either to lose weight or to change their situation

The answer to that is that dieting is inherently unnatural, running counteri to our instincts. The resistence always deemed non-compliance is physiologically led.

According to this, Orbach felt that because she was seeing this in women, that this was not individual but to do with women's place in family and society.

We weren’t just weak-minded, greedy, ill-disciplined; there were specific realities to the conditions of both fat and thin that we were all chasing or escaping through our eating.

It's also interesting that I've never heard this attain the same traction with anyone as what she hypothesized about fatness,

As did thin, which carried its own freight: that you would be seen as superior and cold; that you would be overcome by your own promiscuity; that you would be perceived as selfish; that there would be no buffer between you and the world.

I find this odd, to say the least.

Orbach reminded me that she identified as being an 'overeater' who was previously fat and lost weight. I have to say I'm no longer convinced that her fatness was not a temporary thing that resolve itself during or before her self analysis epiphany.

It may even be what led her in that direction in the first place.....

Shut up Catocracy

Can women pimping what they imagine is male favour just shut up. No question mark. If you are so concerned with the health of chubby or fat women, confine your comments to insisting on proper science into ways of manipulating body weight successfully and painlessly.

Rather than go all Saudi Arabia and claim fat/ter women shouldn't be seen in public. Our bodies are not obscene and do not need to be removed from view. We've already come from that. We hear it- slimness is western hijab. 'Tis the means to get there has a crater sized hole in it and keeps sinking before it reaches the bank. Deal with that or admit you just want fat people to attack themselves for your entertainment, profit and social advancement *yawhn.*

I'm not getting into arguments about whether the tag 'obese' is wrong for Ashley Graham because its insulting and she's bootiful. People still cannot seem to get that 'obesity' starts at a BMI of 30 and that most fat people fall between 30-35.

What is offensive is the way certain people have the capacity to re-name and/or re-classify and demote human beings, in order to produce a continuous stream of lies about them. The suspension of science is mortifying.

I knew this "thin models = anorexia" would be used against fat bodies. I have always regarded that as thoroughly disengenous. The size of fashion models is an expression of attitudes held by those who are trying to blame it on young women, often of their own class!

The motivation is similar, envy social jostling feeling it can be expressed behind a veneer of "concern."

It is dieting and its calories in/out basis that = [more] anorexia, bulimia, hyperphagia. Other women's bodies are not responsible for women's body ish-yous. Stop blaming them and look at the insistence that all weight loss must come about through disorder and self-punishment.

There is no such thing as "healthy dieting" there is just dieting where your body successfully defends you against the assault of starvation and stops it becoming anorexia or triggering powerful counterreactions like hyperphagia. Though individuals vary, this upshot of successful defence is the overall norm.

That is why diets /lifestyle changey-choice/weight management are doomed to fail. That isn't my opinion that is simply the way our bodies are designed.

Anorexia etc., happen when something goes wrong with some aspect of the defences against such self induced famine.

I'll spell it out for you Ms Sour Currie, hater doesn't equal diagnostician. Don't think you're kidding anyone that you don't want people to get diabetes etc., in punishment for being fat. Just like bad girls who slept with too many men should get dead too, preferably after an agonising death bed soliloquy of bitter regret.


How one should have kept one end or the other tightly shut. In order to enter the kingdom of good girl.

Even if that was to happen, it is people like you who not listening. This public ache for fat people's agony and suffering is something that should tell even the most whacked out fat phobe that they've hit the loony tunes buffer, hard. 

Get a hold of yourselves, this is in plain sight!

Supporting starvation as the only option for altering weight means you want fat people to be sentenced to a life time of painful failure? Supporting the pathologization and stigmatization of women's bodies means you want fat people to be sentence to a life time of self perpetuated neurosis, 'depression' and unhappiness.

We've already done it.

Currie is a serial offender. She was using fat hate to espouse her own personal credo. And like so many like her she cannot begin to apply her own purported rationale to herself. Edwina Currie used to be slim and thought that was all about her.

She gained weight with age. I've nothing against this. But do feel anybody who pretends weight loss via dieting is viable, has no right to gain any weight or be fat. If your body is living testament to its failure, you make a liar out of yourself in claiming otherwise.

Memo to feminists, this is what you look like when trying to find a way to shiv fat women back or front, with unconvincing health concern. One you never had for a second in all the years fat women were drowning helplessly in vitriol, inside and out. 

We rescued ourselves against your fighting us every step of the way.You're still trying to find a way to, without sounding misogynist. You too sound like promoters of catocracy, as in "cat fight." Where once you've deciding to accept your allotted societal status, you crank and fight for supremacy within that.

Bully for you.

But we know what it looks like when people like Currie genuinely care. 

Dieting Bug

Confusion about calorie restriction dieting still reigns. Due to "obesity science" and medical professionals,  we're led to believe that there's such a thing as healthy weight loss dieting. Along with the slimming industry which has widely disseminated the falsehood that weight loss is weight loss dieting.

It is not. Dieting is the route by which weight loss is to be pursued, we are given no choice on this. Weight loss is a natural bodily process that's a side effect of the body's use and regulation of its energy.

Another point of confusion is the unthink that if something is "unhealthful" i.e. being fat, that this somehow automatically makes calorie restriction dieting healthy. This appears to parody the cost-benefit ratio. Where something that is unpleasant can become acceptable or even a good thing, due to a comparatively greater risk of what it seeks to alleviate or resolve.

Throwing water over your furniture is something you avoid, unless its on fire. Then, not doing something that would normally ruin it becomes a very good thing in the cause of stopping an inferno. 

Of course a cost-benefit equation does not remove consent, nor pretend that the most toxic and unpleasant route is a must if you can pretend that what it is attacking is the worst most deadly health threat ever i.e. 'obese.'

Dieting is inherently volatile and pathological because it attacks hunger which is there to maintain the body's energy supply. Including to that of your brain. Sufficient energy deficit there would not make for a happy ending.

Hunger is something diet and 'obesity' peddlers like to undermine the existence of, tellingly. That is why we eat, and not hedonism as the current wishful thinking goes.

If it cannot prevent you embarking on this course, it will try to stop any halt any assault you manage to inflict on it. If it cannot manage that, then it will wait until there's any lapse in stentorian resolve i.e. through life happening and shizz. And if you manage to get past that, it will keep trying to reverse your regime of restriction, any chance it gets.

Think of those inbuilt defences as being like the body's immune system (IS)function. Dieting is like an infectious pathogen you're told to infect yourself with to achieve the side effect of weight loss.  That's crazy, but it may not feel like it if those with scientific or medical authority tell you that's a perfectly rational aim.

Now in order to succeed, you need to keep exposing yourself to this pathogen and allow it to develop, your IS keeps fighting it off. In response to this, you are told you need to turn the attempt to infect yourself into a long term infection or "lifestyle"-dieting is a life sentence without any parole for good behaviour.

I'm sure you  realise this means your aim flies in the face of your body's in-built survival instinct. But 'science' and doctors insist-its that way and that way only. Of course it isn't, but they tell you it is.

Your failure to become or remain infected is really the success of your immune system function. Not to mention that this particular bug is unpleasant to be infected by, for a short time, let alone a lifetime. 

That, my friends is a way to grasp the nature of calorie restriction induced weight loss.

Surgery is more effective because it can overcome the body's self preservation instincts which tend to stop you being able to continue self harm if there's the slightest hint of a way out. Surgery cuts that out for you, by cutting out your stomach and rearranging what's left.

I suppose the equivalent to that would be immno-suppresant drugs, say after transplantation, to stop the body rejecting the new organ. In the case of weight loss surgery, it would be to stop your body rejecting the pathology being imposed on it.

Sweet Drinks Tax on Ice

Ooooh, seems multi-millionaire Jamie Oliver's first strike to starve the poor by taxing the food out of their mouths has hit the buffers. It could only be temporary, but I don't care. Dare to dream as they say!!!

Who'd have thought David Cameron would be so skittish about acceding to the demands of these pious wing-dings? I don't even care if its to do with his business cronies. The grip food paranoiacs have  on the national psyche makes this a hook or crook situation.

I repeat, government strategy should be a return to science. Drop "obesity" and its dizzy factotums; phoney research, pseudo-science, quackery and increasingly now, psychobabble. It's all in service to a literal dead end.

The issue is supposed to be weight reversal. That is what is being demanded of fat people, and that is what fat people almost to a person signed up for at one point or another.

See Oprah for evidence of this.

Anything else; the weight categorization, the food fixation, the ad hominem hatred, the endless death threats, the general empire of falsehood, wrapped up in a performance of science (and/or reason) is all irrelevant distraction.

Get past the fact that calories in/out is not the be all and end all of weight. What stops that working is not will, its the body's own design. Calorie restriction dieting is not a viable strategy, as is evidenced in the whining about how fat everyone is, in the midst of its tyranny.

Instead, start with the system that produces weight, the metabolic one. As well as mapping it more fully, find out other targets to alter its course. Ones that don't fight with it, but use its ability to alter itself.

The government should not be funding the research of anyone who cannot accept this, no matter how eminent the institution. No more hypothesis, anatomy instead. Diet fanaticism has done enough harm already.

Focus on people with conditions that produce aggressive weight gain and/or hyperphagia along with other outliers.They are the most important here. They are the reason answers must be found to how to stop and reverse weight gain. They're left to flounder due to this derailing of science, all anyone is interested in is what they eat. No attempt is even made to reduce hunger if that's an issue.

If they cannot acheive the demanded level and duration of starvation, they're told to "diet or DIE." It would be unbelievable if it wasn't actually happening.

No more should they be left in the shadows to be mocked ridiculed used cynically as cautionary tales then left to their fate due to the lack of interest the "obesity" field has in their suffering.

Whilst I'm at it, stop all of this costing the NHS agit-prop, this is a deliberate incitement of hatred and ill-feeling towards fat people, using the cover of "obesity" to pretend that's not ad hominem.

Fat people have never stopped science from coming up with ways to make us slim. We said for years that dieting isn't cutting it, we were doing it. We were told to shut it by both 'obesity' peddlers and the general chorus of vitriol.

We are not costing anything, this hatred is though. Anyone who doesn't want to pay that should stop blocking science.

Find out how to deal with excessive hunger, like you'd deal with excessive temperature. If society insists people weight less through eating less then it must learn to lower hunger further than par. If that feels unethical, that's kind of the point.

Anything can be demanded, when it comes to 'obesity' nothing has to be proved. 

No one's hunger should have to be lowered much below norm, like with stomach removal to induce starvation, bulimia and mal-absorption.

Find out how the body actually produces weight, through the metabolic system. Find out how and why many people's bodies store weight at a rate higher than the average slim person, its like they are physically hibernating, whilst eating perfectly reasonable amounts. Find out how to alter that.

Find out how to stabilise a person's weight. To stop it where it is, rather than allow it to continue up for want of any technique to manage it-beyond dieting. End this all or nothing culture of starvation induced weight loss or your body can go where it may.

This should also be applied to localized areas of adipose storage, like the breasts or chest for men. If science had gone down that route before, people wouldn't need these breast/chest reduction operations. All this feeds into metabolic function, which is reponsible for many aspects of our state of health. A lot of the things blamed on fatness are metabolic, so there's no need to slim people if there's focus on alleviatng those.

If Cameron merely re-establishes a scientific standard in the study of weight as part of metabolic function, he will set a standard others will follow as they will be forced to see the error of their course.

We have to get out of this stupour of misanthropy. The ball's in your court Dave.

Root Cause Fallacy

Before following the last post on slimming/'obesity' industries conceptual flaws, I'd like to mention another cognitive flub. This is Jacquie Lavin again on weight loss surgery,

The message we are giving to young people.........is that they don’t really need to do anything, so long as they get to a certain weight, because it will be solved for them. 

That's exactly what it's like to be slim!

The whole reason cutting a person's stomach out is a more effective means of enforcing starvation is precisely that it is a step closer in impersonating a body maintaining its own weight. Though choosing to damage bodies rather than alter function.

Dieting is wholly artificial, another one of its multi-layered dysfunctions. That's not how the overwhelming number of slim people are slim. If this offends as a slur against the shift slim people put in to retain their figures. It may make you feel better to know that fat people put just as much if not way more effort whilst remaining and re-gaining fatness.

No? Doesn't cheer you up at all? Tough crowd.

Slim people responding with aversion and disgust at any mention of dieting, along with audible groans shows our shared antipathy toward dieting. When fat people show this, 'tis another "that's why you're fat" trope.

If slim people already lived on a diet, their aversion to any aspect of calorie restriction would not have aided a society determined to fill itself with exactly the kind of things that counter the calorie restriction contrivance. 

A central fallacy of the current 'obese' crusade is that fat people are slim people plus a carelessly acquired excess. In truth, fatness is to fat people, what slimness is to slim people.

The(ir) norm.

To make a fat person slim via this abnormal and pathological means requires the disruption of normal with the abnormal not the removal of pathology as is presented. That applies more or less the same whether a person is sick or well.

If you want to make a fat person slim, you need to recruit the body's metabolism instead of launching an assault on it.

So, about this fallacious notion of "a root cause of obesity"

Nor does it address why you’re overeating* in the first place.”

"It" refers to surgery.

Williams too backs this fanciful idea of root cause,

Surgery, of course, doesn’t get to the root cause of why so many young Britons get fat in the first place: the proliferation of fast food outlets in deprived areas, sugary drinks and high-fat, high-sugar foods, poverty, fall-off in physical education in schools, the rise of a sedentary lifestyle and the allure of computer games and laptops.

Most of this is systemic or part of a societal drift. None of it offers the individual power to affect the functioning of their own body. This is integral to the calorie restriction/'obesity' politic.

I'd describe the root cause fallacy here as the assumption that something has a direct provable cause and that any purported reversal or treating of this root cause will undo said thing. In this case weight.

The variables involved edge it out of the realms of scientific legitimacy, whether its the cause, the treatment of it-let alone whether that can be said to work in any objective or measurable way. Proposers of this could make a case if they tested it on people. Identify this so called root cause in them, treat it according to what is supposed to treat that,  then record weight as it goes into reverse, as a result. Without the imposition of calorie restriction.

The real motive for this is to excuse away the failure of calorie restriction. You're struggling with dieting because you want to be fat in order to avoid rape/because you're afraid to be slim/because you eat your feelings etc.,

In case this is overlooked, the idea of insisting people can only change their bodies as a side effect of societal change is wholly objectionable.

This idea of cause comes from fatness as a construct not as a reality. There's no singular isolatable "root cause" of being fat. It is not a fat suit on a slim body. Weight is the outcome of mechanics.

The usual story; precursor to fat =cause. i.e. "Circumstantial change meant less activity, and I gained weight" is typical. Yet, if the same happens and you stay the same weight. You don't feel, "I've maintained my physique due to becoming less active."

When builders are fat, they don't say, "My active job has put on weight"

Any precursor that doesn't go; did less and/or ate more and put on weight, is nowhere. Despite the opposite often being a precursor to gain. How do you prove this apart from after the fact fitting into the 'obesity' narrative as usual?

And the reverse to loss. i.e. You stopped working so hard, doing so much, caring so much and weight reversal followed.

Imagine being told you have to get over some adverse experience in order to be allowed any medical procedure? No doctor would dare demand such, few would want to.

.....the search for a root cause is usually a witch-hunt in disguise, trying to find someone or something to blame. If you think there is really a single cause, you eventually must identify a single person. If you stop short of that, everyone knows the process was a farce. But blaming a person is also a farce. Everyone knows that someone’s being thrown under the bus and that wasn’t the real problem.

Ain't that the truth! 

Check out the solution,

There are several solutions to this dilemma. One is to stop looking for a single root cause, and instead identify the system of conditions or dysfunctions that jointly caused the observed problem.

Systemic, understand the way the system supporting the thing observed creates it. Funny how that's almost never an "obesity research" goal. Always the bad sociology.

This allows something constructive to come out of the postmortem, instead of inexorably bringing pressure to bear on a well-meaning person who will then be sacrificed to appease the false gods of reductionist blame-gaming.

 Tell us about it. 

* ["Overeating" has no meaning beyond whatever any fat person eats whether that's famine or feast.]

Continous Penitence

Last year, Sally Williams wrote an article about young people undergoing weight loss gastrectomy, called: 30stone at 13. It was worth reading, though not necessarily for the obvious assumptions and conclusions.  Her article's premise was to ask why so many youth, some still teenagers, were having gastrectomies to lose weight.

The quick answer is the trap set for fat people in general. That runs on a pseudo-scientific pretence around an obsolete construct that aims to force fat people to starve themselves, by whatever means.

To this end, weight gain is not only defended by the promotion of the punitively ineffective, it is again actively promoted, via things such the insistence on nothing but disordered eating and activity. Then deliberately leaving the course set as uninterrupted by any competent intervention.

Before responding to the meatier aspects of the article, I felt a keen sense of the need to alight on couple of things as they keep coming up. I'll start with this,

Young people should be given the chance to control their own weight, argues Dr Jacquie Lavin, head of nutrition and research at weight-loss company Slimming World.

This sort of flip mode comes up a lot in 'obesity' cult unthink. Where a fundamental truth about its own dysfunction is projected outward to appear as if its coming from somewhere or someone else. Usually its chosen target. I actually agree with the statement prima facie.

 All people should be given the ability to regulate as many of their own bodily functions as are reasonably and feasibly possible. Weight could be included in that, as an aspect of metabolic function. 

Jacquie Lavin then goes on,

 “Surgery takes it out of your hands. 

Nah haaaah! What takes balance and the prospect of control out of your hands is everything she represents.  The whole calories in/out hypothesis, which still totally dominates our grasp on hunger/eating and weight.

She like a lot of die hard fat phobes works on the assumption that surgery to induce a state of starvation is somehow completely different to "willpower" to induce a state of starvation.

As the aim is exactly the same, why would the means create such a cleave? This is another mental filip present in the 'obesity' cult psyche. We hear of "different types of [weight loss] diet" and how "lifestyle change" is totes different from weight loss dieting. And how, diets don't work, you have to permanently diet to lose weight.

To go back to that first question, this distinction between starvation induced by repeated acts of will-i.e. practising anorexia and just being cut into anorexia, so you are forced to act it out, displays something fundamental about the whole 'obesity' crusade mindset. Which truly isn't motivated by an urge to make fat people slim. It just uses that premise to hide behind.  It's effective distraction though isn't it? [You believe it don't you?]

Insisting starvation must be through repeated conscious acts is difficult for me to grasp, I don't get it. It seems to come from the construction of fatness as the outcome of a continued pattern of sinful/quasi-criminal acts.

Like with sin, amends must be made, [the idea of] continuous acts of penitence must take place. Until the "debt" is paid off, i.e. one is slim.

Though an operation achieves starvation in a far more efficient though destructive manner-we know this was never about improving health- it is unacceptable to many fat phobes due to the feeling that being held into starvation cheats an act of penitence for an act of sin. Though you can suffer greatly, indeed die from this wretched (mis)use of surgery, that doesn't satisfy the urge.

This persnicketiness is a signal of people who've not had to temper their indulgence one iota. 

Then there's "Root Cause Fallacy".

Do Meditate

I see from Ragen that Deepak Chopra is recommending meditation in support of starving yourself. Calorie restrictionists cannot accept directly that their 'weight loss' is through starvation. They do when people complain about the 'obesity' cult potentially encouraging anorexia-"We have an obesity crisis!!!" is the oft said comeback.

They admit it when they tell you the liberation of Auschwitz revealed a picture of successful dieting, or something to that effect. Dieting is not "based on physics" it's based on starvation inducing weight loss.

'Obesity' wallahs induce you to starve by constant negative and abusive pressure, both internal and external. However, this lowers resistance to any adverse experience, like self inflicted starvation, even further.

They could get away with this nasty game before because fat people accepted this. Experience schooled us in the flaws of this deranged contradictory approach, so diet/'obesity' wallahs feel forced to admit that their lifestyle anorexia prescription requires as much self esteem and healthy robust mental health as possible, to cushion you from the physiological and psychological distress of denying your body the energy it needs to function. 

The even deeper conundrum is of course, robust mental health and self esteem mitigates against abusing yourself in the first place. Given this is suicidal.

You could call that the weight-loss diet paradox.

So I say please do take up meditation if you can. It doesn't suit everyone. You can meditate in a lying or sitting position-the latter is better so you don't drift off. If you wish to do the former, try keeping your legs bent at the knee with your feet flat-on whatever you're laying on, to stop yourself drifting off.

You can do a walking/ in motion meditation, where you say, maintain constant focus on one aspect of your walking action i.e. concentrate on your foot striking the ground. Or you can scan your body for tension and focus on adjusting your body until it is relieved, over time this practise can improve your gait and movement.

You can also learn to focus on moving with maximum ease or flow.

I've told already how meditation inadvertently resolved my hyperphagia/hyperhunger, which had been been made intractable by 2 decades of trying to restrict calories. It did this because after a time, the release of nervous tension that it induces became systemic. It was wholly unexpected.

That is, meditation first releases the tension in your muscles and nervous system, which then starts to reassert itself after a session, as you go about your business [due to that requiring use of the nervous system]. It's a lot like when someone corrects your posture as you stand still, as soon as move, your posture goes back to your normal bad posture/mis-use reasserts itself.

Only with regular patient practise does correction become your (body's) default.

I don't even care if people try it to sustain dieting. It's the right way around to deal with any issues, soften them, reduce their power or remove them, rather than keep them in play and then force pathologies on yourself as "treatment".

That 'obesity' wallahs are now bringing out more and more palliatives reveals just how far they set fat people up for failure and how careless and reckless they were with our health and well being. It's also quite amusing that virtually no "alternative" practitioners have manage to get beyond weight loss dieting.

Proving they are not really the alternative to more conventional medicine. The body's capacity for self healing, repair and restoration is. The body can right its impulses and urges better than pharmaceuticals, if given the chance and the right ways and means.

The use of our conscious focus to alter our body's function is a true alternative. What one brilliant humane doctor referred to as the "doctor within".  He also pointed out that was the one the medical hierarchy wants to stop. I've had little doubt that this is some element of why medics don't really want to "solve obesity" as they pretend and are desperate to drag us all down "lifestyle" alley.

The more you meditate, the more your consciousness is released from other people's impositions of [self ] loathing, the less likely you are to wish to starve or otherwise abuse yourself. The pressure on you and the tension in you affects your taste buds, appetite and hunger. You may well find what you eat changes, that you wish to eat less without any conscious effort. Which is why you shouldn't really meditate to support starvation.

Don't put any expectations or demands on it. Just go on an adventure with it.

Use meditation to unlearn being on trial by fat phobia every moment of your existence. Use meditation to unravel your practise of fat hatred and recover your subjectivity, your mind even. Use meditation to get over the idea that being slim is an achievement. Use meditation to experience your body, without the baggage of fat hate. Which of course not only enables you to appreciate what a wonderful eco-system it is.

It also enables you to experience your existence without a fat phobic tape loop playing constantly. To experience this frequently, is to realise that you only want to get out of "this body" because of that fat phobic tape loop.

Which is the whole purpose of the 'obesity' construct and fat hatred.