Wednesday, 22 July 2015

Fat people must starve, themselves

Seems that bulimia device, Aspire Assist is out there. And-how could I have missed this-the most popular post on this blog is "Proto-anorexia, my mandated aspiration" and this assists it! ¿Qué pasa?

Now you may be aware that there's a belief among some FA's that the 'obesity' crusade is eliminationist toward [against?!] fat people,
Eliminationism is the belief that one's political opponents are "a cancer on the body politic that must be excised — either by separation from the public at large, through censorship or by outright extermination — in order to protect the purity of the nation".
This term is one that has passed me by, so I've no depth of grasp beyond what I've just copied. My impression is said definition seems to fuse a whole lot of things that don't really belong together- in terms of their seriousness. Not saying it's a bad definition, so much as its putting together things that don't usefully go together.

The most obvious thing it calls to (my) mind is genocide. But seeking to suppress political opposition, doesn't belong with that in any useful way that I can see. The latter is too interesting a phenomena to be overshadowed by the horror of seeking to wipe out a whole group of racial, cultural and/or social group-that has too much gravity.

In the context of fat people the point goes something like, because fat people are whole people, like anyone else and not slim people wearing fat suits, wanting us to "lose weight" is a desire to eliminate us.

We are whole becomes we are only in existence because we are fat. I differ in that I've said from the beginning that I neither believe I had or have to be slim or FAT.

I am what I am, and the weight I am is neither here nor there. That would find different expression if I had been thinner. Ditto, if I'd been born 20 years earlier/later than I had been. I don't accept the idea that a slimmed down fat person ceases to be, anymore than a fattened slim person [there are some] becomes a non-entity.

That must be how slim people feel! I didn't get that up to this point. I've been wondering for years, "Why/how do they manage to take being slim this seriously?" Now, perhaps I know! *

Fat people, we are best off out of that mess though.

Weight doesn't define your being, its an expression of the interplay between your own personal physiology and your own specific history. If the latter had been different, it's entirely possible that you or I or anyone could have been slim or even thin and been unable to imagine yourself fat/ter.

That isn't true of all fat people, nor all slim/mer people, but it is probably true of the overwhelming majority of people, given that number fits within a BMI of between 20-40, most between 20-35.

Though that seems like a lot of difference to us consciously, metabolically, I don't feel it is. That points to flexibility rather than a set point. We don't need a particular set point, because unless multiple things are interrupted, we don't differ much in range. The efficiency of our self regulation may make it seem as though we are destined to be the weight we are. Our bodies do an incredible job of self maintenance.

What we call fat and slim are actually not that far away from each other as we think they are. I've said time and again, I do not feel distinct from slim people, it is they who wish to set themselves apart from fat/ter people.

When we stumble on a way or ways to reverse/advance weight properly-with ease and efficiency-doing as the body does now, all but a few could probably fit within an even narrower space that than. There's nothing sacred about weight. If there seems to be, that is a contrivance of the refusal to pursue real ways of altering weight.

Proper contraception cuts unplanned births drastically, regardless of overall fertility. Popping out infants is not integral to being female, is it?

If there's any eliminationism, its not in "weight loss", its in the insistence on starving fatness/fat people über alles. Diet or die is eliminationist through an element of a Tuskegee Syphillis experiment. They told those men they were getting a 'cure', when they were pretending, because they wanted to see how this syphillis thing would pan out on socially devalued bodies.

Our much touted and may I say too often yearned for deaths-just to motivate us of course, not out of any wickedness-would be incidental, not the aim.

As I'm sure we know, weight loss and weight loss dieting are not the same thing. That is not tricksy or glib, its quite crucial. I've always said 'obesity' wallahs are not motivated to eliminate fat people via calorie restriction induced weight loss [CRIWL], than they are starving fat people or getting us to starve ourselves, whether that makes us slim or not.

It's bound up with the sanctification of 'fasting' and repressed fears about our rampant consumerism.

The hegemony of disinterest in the abject and obvious failure of CRIWL is key to what clued me in years ago. If the crusade was about making everyone slim, it'd be concerned with the science of how to achieve that, like any other field. Its fixation on the irrelevance of weight categorization and food/eating betrays another urge.

See the response to this bulimia device. It should be, whoopa-de-doo, fewer fat people ahoy, after all, they butcher, mutilate and mal-nourish fat people happily, yet,
nutritionist Keith Ayoob at Albert Einstein College of Medicine tells ABC News. And as horrifying as it is, "it was only a matter of time before someone came up with" a machine that lets them "just eat and make the calories go away." The only healthy way to lose weight is to change your eating and lifestyle habits, but "once you put this in someone, they're never going to want it taken out."
Yeah, only a matter of time before your act started to wear thin, oh get me. And waitaminute, he's worried about mal-nutrition? Hasn't he heard of stomach removal? How prissy of this little prig to get offended by people emptying the contents of their stomachs into the toilet but not about mutilation. Him and his 'obesity' industry have set a trap for fat people. Four walls, body dysmorphic self  identification [the obese construct], social dis-ease [harassment/stigmatization], calories in/calories out and anorexia-by-proxy [enforced fasting].

Ayoob mentions everything that should and could be said constantly about gastric bypass surgery. Why now? One reason and one reason only. It threatens to circumvent the fourth wall of the trap, enforced STARVATION. Specifically, a fat person must be seen to be freely enforcing starvation on themselves-that's why the most wing nut fat phobes hate stomach removal, despite it giving them what they want-fat people deprived and often in pain.

That my friends is the only objection to this wretched device, by 'obesity' wallahs, who do not care if their own prognosis about 'obesity' =fat people die if they can't diet. It's a highly indulgent emotive response, born of the continual lack of challenge they meet.

All that guff about "changing your lifestyle habits " is just cover for saying, the sinner has not paid their penitence, [we're all doomed!!!!!]

Tuesday, 21 July 2015

Low chance of permanent weight reversal with calorie restriction induced weight loss [CRIWL]

That should be the headline, not quite as snappy though. Fat people have been pointing this out for lifetimes. It has been observable for aeons too.
The chance of an obese person attaining normal body weight is 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women, increasing to 1 in 1,290 for men and 1 in 677 for women with severe obesity,
Don't assume this admission is permanent, they'd have to drop the whole mess, that cals in/out is the end, that weight categorization has any scientific use, et. al.

The white coat mafia has known ddw for decades but chose instead to assert the delusion that if the collective unconscious insists, dieting works, this will become reality.

Nor is "losing weight impossible" as the DM headline has fatuously claimed. This is solely about the failure of Calorie restriction dieting, it is specific to that. CRIWL has a low probability of success, regardless of your weight. CRD is only ONE (purported) route to weight loss, it isn't weight loss.

Weight loss is the aim, the end product, the category. It is not interchangeable with calorie restriction dieting.

WEIGHT LOSS DIETING

WEIGHT LOSS

Spot the difference? The former is a [supposed] way of achieving the latter.

Weight loss happens everyday, as part of your body's cycle of self regulation, or homeostasis. 

I can hardly think of any slim person I know who has dieted a few times and stayed at a lowered weight without being permanently on a diet. I know of none who can stick permanently on a diet. I know of none who do not serially rebound, if given long enough.

Why do you think you've seen all those lose 7lbs for the bikini season, lose 5lbs for that special event, LBD diet, get into your size 10 jeans diet etc., your whole life?

Diet's don't work for anybody. It is a matter of physiology, not will, or body size. Turning this universal fact of physiology into a fat thing, creates ignorance. The next stage in this continuing idiocy is to claim a brand new emphasis on "prevention."

Do you still accept anything these jokers say on face value?

One of the first times I accidentally butted heads in the fatsphere-by that I mean said something I thought was relatively obvious and got unexpected blowback-was when I told shapely prose years ago that the 'obesity' crusade has always been aimed at slim people. Middle/upper class white ones to be precise, otherwise known as "the worried well."

Now, whatever you think of that, come to think of that, you must admit its a little odd that what has always been is now presented as brand new. Indeed, I said before that this was what I found so unnerving about that Daniel Callahan offering, apart from its phoned-in fat phobia, "It’s time to approach our public health crisis with an edgier strategy." said he. The same 'obesity' crusade presented as new. Notice how they did the same to fat people. When we started to wake up, it became, we need to start shaming fat people. I mean whurrt?!

Think about all these so called 'obesity' papers and 'studies' that are of little to no earthly use to fat people, but instead prop up its sagging tropes. When there was another more recent tranche of studies stating the obvious, fat people's health varies as much as anyone's. There were "studies" insisting that  in 20 years time, fat people will display signs they deem associated with health problems. Despite association not panning out automatically as [real] ill health.

Restriction/starvation is hardly going to 'prevent' anything your body isn't 'preventing' itself. What it will do is what it is doing, increase those discovering they have a propensity for eating disorders.

Using CRIWL as the means for weight loss means anybody of any weight who wishes to lose weight will have to travel that same route. And that happens to be the primary provocateur of every eating/hunger disorder so far known.

This idea that if you starve yourself when you put on a few pounds, you can stem or prevent weight gain and remain slim, for example, depends on your on how your body responds to that.

Fasting did not stem my weight, my body did not respond in that manner. But if 'obesity' wallahs think differently, let them for once show it in trials. So people know exactly what to expect and what's expected of them.

There's a real conceptual difficulty for those who've involved themselves in 'obesity' and they seem obsessed with starvation. Someone has to be a vehicle for that urge, if not fat people then slim.

Friday, 17 July 2015

Excuses, excuses.........

I used to think an excuse was simply an attempt to justify bad behaviour. So the dissonance of being told things along the theme of; "Fat people always have excuses" never goes. When it comes to being fat,  I don't see there being anything to excuse.

Like virtually all fat people, when I assumed I had something to excuse, I didn't. I said continuously, to myself and anyone who would listen, "Mea Culpa." I am to blame. Now I know that was incorrect, there's nothing to mitigate, nothing to defend. The accusation is myth and nonsense.

What I notice to this day is people accept remaining in the position of having something to excuse. FA just seems to mean, better, more scienterrific "excuses."

Those who like Maria Kang demand "What's your excuse....?" sound exactly like things that have been demanded of me often-as someone brought up by Xtians, best embodied by the assertive entreaty,
What is your excuse for not accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour?
Answer,
Erm, I'm an atheist. 
They know this, but they sort of don't believe me. Well, it's not so much they disbelieve me, as they reject the concept of being outside their frame of reference. You're either with JC or the Devil- for something else, doesn't scan.

The trouble with either viewing yourself or allowing yourself to be cast purely as "anti the obesity crusade" is, you remain imprisoned within its terms, ones which do not allow for your sentience, whilst addressing it directly of course.

Clashing with that isn't enough to define you properly.

Better to stand for what you stand for.

Wednesday, 15 July 2015

This is someone who's paid for the indulgence of diet or DEATH

Two words; computer trouble.

Carl Thompson died in June of this year. He was 33. His was a life that fitted into the modern campaign for dubious hysteria about fat, with room to spare. He lived and died without a crusade that purports to be about 'obesity', being able to do a goddamned thing to prevent his untimely end.

He died of a so far unnamed cause, though he'd previously had many heart attacks. His body brought low by a recent tranche of ferocious weight gain. In 2012 his beloved mother, who was his rock, died of a BRAIN TUMOUR. Grief disturbed his system even more provoking a doubling of his weight from a previous 30sts/420lbs/190.5 kgs to 65sts/910lbs/412.7 kgs in only three years.  

There's little doubt in my mind that his health was the product of some kind of congenital brain problem, though as far as I can tell UNDIAGNOSED. He also seemed to have some level of intellectual disability. Again note, his mother's death raises the prospect of heredity. Perhaps Carl's problem was in a different place, affecting different functions.

I don't know if they did an autopsy, but if they did, no doubt they'd be looking at the fat around his organs. If I was a pathologist, I'd make straight for the centre of his brain. Check his hypothalamus, see what shape it was in. Probably other glands in the body too, i.e. his adrenal glands.

He said he'd become aware of his raging hyperhunger at the age of THREE years old. Driven to raid neighbours fridges to find food to eat, he was discovered in the process.
He would sneak downstairs at night and raid the kitchen cupboards in his childhood home in Lydden. “I was only about three or four and no one knew why I did it,” he told local media. “I would just eat anything out of the cupboards.”
That my friends is textbook hyperphagia.You can tell from the sense of bafflement in his description, that it had nothing to do with his conscious will. It was a faulty excess, hypersensitized hunger drive and signalling. Along with some kind of overactive storage of fat.

That I have to say this is tribute to how dumbed-down calories in/out + fat phobia has made minds. It's so blatantly obvious there's more going on in cases like this and thankfully more people are beginning to catch on. Despite this being beyond the reach of some 'obesity' quacks.

Joel Snape, for example, editor of a fitness magazine no less! That article was published in the Telegraph newspaper a sort of grown up more sober brother of the daily mail. Yet Snape writes for lib/ left bastion the guardian.

They're still pushing weight loss dieting as if it was invented last year.

Can you believe people would stoop to spouting who let him eat, on the taxpayer? Well yes, I'll bet you can.

Who let his hunger stay that way despite millions being thrown into 'obesity'? This so called discipline has produced nothing for people like Carl, over a century.

At the time, of his first childhood awareness of his hyperhunger, he was no more than a usual plump child going on to thin out as children do after the toddling stage becomes walking.

It wasn't till towards his teens that he became fat. It made no effective difference.

That's worth dwelling on a bit.

He could have been diagnosed early and treated but, he wasn't fat. When he became fat-which is most routinely associated with excess hunger. He wasn't diagnosed then either. 

Repeat, the 'obesity' construct means fat people can neither be healthy nor unhealthy, despite all cries of the latter. Our ill health is often dismissed as is our HEALTH.

That's an adequate summation of the usefulness of the 'obesity' crusade. And why it simply cannot be about making people slimmer or healthier, no matter what we're told.

It seeks to harass and disturb those without problems and has NOTHING for those that do.

The question the media should be asking is who "allowed" this wretched 'obesity' industry, a largely irrelevant self perpetuating entity.

Colluding with its open promotion of diet or death? Do some joined up thinking about where that will end for people like Carl through no fault of their own.

Friday, 29 May 2015

Rehabilitating Your Urge to Move

We are born moving and have instincts to move that are rhythmic. At certain times it feels better for us to move than others. Like at times it feels better and easier to get to sleep than others.


This article, "Lack of Exercise can disrupt the body's rhythms" is talking about exercise helping us to know optimal times to move. It feels like its conflating exercise with movement, which sometimes happens. They aren't the same. The peaks of your natural instinct toward movement is something you should be able to pick up on at any state. If anything, I'd say exercise isn't a good way to achieve this for most people. Especially if you aren't in to it.

It's a bit like demand feeding/normal eating/intuitive eating. You have to clear psychological obstacles out of your mind-like identifying your body as inherently incompetent or yourself as forever physically incapable. Adopt a new more neutral open-minded stance, if positivity is too much of stretch.

Put your mind on alert for optimal times to feel the urge move at its most strongest, then above all, respond to those feelings/urges, freely. Act on them, no matter how short in duration-seconds even!
Follow through with that impulse as long as it feels good to you, stop promptly when it ceases to- at least at first, until you get into the swing of things, later you'll gain more flexibility.

With consistent practice and patience these urges should become stronger and more distinct, longer lasting and more satisfying to engage with.

The key is learning to perceive and go with rise in your instincts to move, synchronize impulse with a positive response. Avoid overburdening them with excess desire, guilt or shame about seeing yourself as inactive, or needing to make up for lost time.

Now's the time to learn patience and love for yourself. Go at your own pace.

You can do this outside the movement you need to make to go about your normal affairs. It will feed into that at some point.

Make a point of shifting your consciousness away from any negative or forcing to a more coaxing wait and see what you can do, type stance.

If at first you can't feel any sense of an urge to move, then try for least disinclined/most easeful of all. And take it from there.......

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Managing What Exactly?

The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals HATE fatness and want it desperately to end, right? A fat body is inconvenient, tiresome work making indulgence AGAINST THEM;
Just moving her onto the operating table required an additional team: the table was too narrow and the straps too small. One even dislocated his shoulder while performing a cesarean on a 400-pound patient.
And blah, blah, we've heard you.

The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals desperately need the existence of fatness to cease, m'kay?

So what's this about?
But we should be managing obesity even more aggressively, as we do elevated blood pressure and diabetes.
What this “managing obesity” Let alone ‘aggressively’ to consist of?

How can you "manage" what you only wish to get rid of?

There are two main ways of looking at the concept of treatment. A cure that takes time to implement, hence whilst you're receiving say a course of anti-biotics, you are receiving treatment- that is, the cure.

Then there’s when you have no cure and take substances and/or use techniques to palliate or suppress the symptoms of an ever present pathology. 

The latter fits into "management," because, no cure so you have to manage the pathology, but what could this possibly translate into when it comes to the fiction of fatness as dis-ease? The issue is tissue-  what would palliating or suppressing that after the fact amount to? You can only stop the formation of said tissue or reverse it.

Seeking to stem further gain, has never been an aim of the crusade and anyway, what's the method going to be? Calorie restriction. Using that to stem gain is a further admission of the impotence of that strategy.

The current situation has been arrived at in thrall to theoretically trying to stop formation of adiposity with dietary restriction or much more attempting to starve it out of existence after the fact.

Continual denial of this a continuation of the same delusion. 

You cannot “manage” adipose "like blood pressure or diabetes," what's that going to be, yo-yoing everyday, from 400lbs to 200lbs? Do the authorities have a way to do that up their sleeve? Or how else to guarantee any lowered weight will be synchronized with need for medical attentions?

Managing risk of what people choose to link with fatness would not depart the advice given generally for diet and exercise. Medics issue is not with those association which they mainly use the threat of as a lever of influence, it’s with bulk.

Managing bulk aggressively is an oxymoron, you either stop or reverse, or you do nothing. That's has been up 'til now, aggression leads to aggressive fall-out. More weight gain for everyone overall, along with more eating disorders and neuroses too.

One of the sadder research and development aims of big pharma in recent decades is their propensity for rent seeking. Leaving pathological conditions in play in order to sell temporary relief/reversal-to maximize profit over the long term, if not a person's life time. 

As bad as that is, at least it tends to be in the form of pills or some contraption or other. Expecting people to be on a perma diet, i.e. lifestyle anorexia is not a viable option. Hence the whining. And segregation of fat people? Seriously? Where will the dividing line be? How will you measure who goes to the normal or the fat hospital?

No, you actually have to do the work and find a way to get the body to cool its heels vis-a-vis storing lipids. That means you either deal with the mechanics or you don’t.There are no short cuts. No easy routes, no old faithfuls, this needs to break new ground.

White coats need to get it through their heads, fatness is too honest for the old sleights of hand. Their silly attempts to keep trying to pressing it into categories that give them scope for the usual mess  around, neurosis, eating disorder, addiction, psychological booboo etc.,  aren't there.

Dream on or get on.

Monday, 25 May 2015

Jamie Oliver's Food De-evolution

Committed self-aggrandizer Jamie Oliver has taken it upon himself to launch what he calls a "food revolution." What does this explosive rearrangement of tectonic plates of history consist of I hear you ask?

Insisting the G20 adopts resolutions to teach children to grow and cook fresh nutritious food at school. Well....

It used to be thus. I'm in favour of it. I was all in favour of it maintaining it, when that was stopped for the cause of making savings some decades ago.

What I will never ever support though is anything that uses and abuses people to sell anything. Anything that uses the toxic 'obesity' cult in any capacity will do without my support, even if I agree with any proposal. 

What people like Oliver don't seem to have a hope of grasping is that what he thinks of as a solution is an expression of an underlying problem. An indifference toward food but above all, a profound contempt for humanity.

We were joined in an on-line discussion by some throwing around healthy eating/child 'obesity' about the place. I explained how I felt that children should be given knowledge of how to feed themselves well for its own sake. Because that's a good thing to do in itself. Skills in general and self care in this instance, give confidence to us all, moreso in children.

I might as well have been speaking martian. It didn't compute with them. That food is a potential source of pleasure and joy in itself and that poor, along with better children are worthy of having that joy passed on, because they are inherently worth it. Indeed as an exposition of that worth.

They actually laughed at me, indicated that I was talking gibberish.

I'm not hating. I already knew this. Not everyone cares that much about whether people can take care of themselves well, or not. The reason cooking was taken out was to remove barriers in creating increased reliance on ready meals.

To create that market.

It's called "wealth creation."

So rather than bothering to overcome an indifference that those who possess it are oblivious to. I concluded, leave them to make up their own minds and find direct means reverse weight, through science.

If people like Oliver were really interested in the well being of children, they've had their chance. Teaching children to cook is not a "human right", it's just something they should expect from those there to give them guidance.

I'd say it is their human right though not to be degraded, demeaned, stripped of their humanity by those they trust implicitly, branding them with some toxic pseudo-identity of size. Certainly not in  order to provide an entry point for permanent dominance by others, or to give certain people a sense of importance they so clearly feel the lack of.