Thursday, 29 January 2015

Ordinary

Didn't in the end watch Shut-Ins. Can't say I'm sorry. I just didn't feel up to yet another possibly sterile exercise in salvation of fat people via calorie restriction. This feeling of spiritual fatigue came over me unexpectedly.

Ever see a fat person who seems kind of passive about being fat? I don't mean they've never dieted, don't see fatness any differently than a slim person would slimness, don't operate on the terms of the 'obese' construct and haven't been marked by that.

Because upon my honour, I've yet to encounter such a person. You know what we should resolve to do in 2015? Be that person! [Hey, is that a resolution?! Better late than never]

Do know what I see when I see a fat person who hasn't wasted themselves dieting? Ordinary. I see most of us actually are like in most things related to a health or medical context. We are as passive as that fat person seems, but isn't. I see other things too obviously, but I want to concentrate on that.

This false sense of passivity is played up in fat people strangely because; a) there is a fat standard and that's way higher than the ordinary one. Say in things like; pro-activeness, initiative, responsibility etc., anything related to or seen in the framework of health/self management. So an ordinary standard in a fat person looks really baaad, buuutttt, you are catching a glimpse of yourselves people.
 
What it looks like when the niceties, courtesies and acknowledgement accorded the ordinary standard are withdrawn.

This is a bit of a tangle.

The modern doctor patient relationship, has been formed around the infectious pathology/magic bullet golden era of medicine. Progress has seen the sun is setting on that. Now, modern healthcare is being dominated by; the nervous system, managing decline, chronic conditions etc.,

This is threatening to derail healthcare budgets-including Big Pharma's charging policies-and placing exhaustive demands on medical professionals. We need to change that relationship. The patient must emerge from a position of docility and obedience to more of a partnership with professionals. Something that's a tough change for them and lay people alike.

The latter have been taught that the compassionate practice of medicine =illness is misfortune, nothing to do with you-which is fairly apt for infectious disease. Whereas the management of a chronic condition can at times turn you into your own doctor and practice nurse. It's not unusual for patients with chronic conditions to know more about them than their own doctors.

Preventative medicine requires something akin to that level of awareness. A more active engaged patient who actually expects to and does demonstrate initiative with their own self management. It's a sense of responsibility way beyond the scope of the current patient posture.

For the professionals, its tough because a lot of their status and power seems to many of them to lay in this abjectness.

Alas, the higher ups seem to have decided not to face this squarely and instead to pass the same passivity off as something else, a lack of "personal responsibility". Blaming the patient for their health and the failing of any quackery that's supposed to bring resolution. For some reason, medical systems have difficulty with saying they don't know.

Strange though it seems to say it, it's almost as if this new era has turned medics towards the psychiatric model. People trying to claim their categorizations are biologically defined, asserting disease by committee and other dubious practise.

'Obesity' has become the vehicle to pioneer this horribleness.

A lot of trying to be slim, happened outside medical aegis. It meant fat people ended up surreptitiously advancing (part of) this new relationship with medics. Alas, the nature of the pathologized and dehumanized 'obese' construct has meant we weren't allowed to really go for it.

Many fat people don't even notice how much initiative and independence they've shown in pursuit of slimness.

At times people misunderstand me. Much decorated medics and specialists in eating disorders, addiction, 'obesity', mental health, speak their piece and others listen, absorbing it as holy writ.

When I can seem incredibly dismissive, to the point of perchance seeming positively arrogant. Not so. It's just the fat standard in action.

Of course the fat standard is hardly comparable to the disabled standard, where people have to negotiate a difference in function in a world not designed to acknowledge those needs.

This seeming ambivalence towards experts is closer to a patient response we are going to have to move to, whether anyone likes it or not. We're going to have to move to a place where we no longer take personally the possibility of culpability in conditions that aren't like a broken leg, sprained ankle etc.,

We're gong to have to learn to view all sorts of conditions with the same equilibrium as we do those. In other words, we're gong to have to accept that say, neuroses can be as much our dong as a broken arm and that bothers us no more than a having broken arm would.

We will all have the have the potential to seem arrogant, scanning the utterances of highly qualified experts with the alacrity we might show a priest or a politician.

Explains the reluctance of the white coat mafia.........

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Limited Horizon

Horizon, a pretty decent science series, overall, purported to explore if a scientific approach could make dieting work better. You mean it not been used up till now? *eyeroll.* I somehow expected the focus to be on the dieting approach in relation to human anatomy, how and why it fails.

Not so. It went a bit reality tv gathering some people carefully selected to fit eating categories coined by the programme-makers. Their "solutions" turned out not to be designed on some further scientific understanding-oxymoronic though that is.

Instead they were the fad diets du nos jours;

5:2 or intermittent fasting-when you eat normally 5 days a week and up to 600 calories a day for two.

A low-GI (glycemic index) diet-basically, low carb, sugar, protein and vegetable based; currently passing as paleo, stone age etc.,

And a low calorie diet.

As you'd expect, the group bore no reflection to the true make-up of those in the 'obese' categorization. They featured mainly people around or above BMI 40+. 

There were some amusing shots composed of them assembled together, with the "experts in obesity" standing in a row ahead of them. They of course looked tiny-in comparison, you couldn't miss that visual humdinger. Not sure if it was me but, it seemed to be saying, wisdom, over here-slim, ignorance over there, fat. 

The structure of the programme was created around the usual pre-determination conclusions about weight. It's designed for the comfort and satisfaction of those heading the process, to help fat people achieve the unlikely. Any sustained, objective rigour must fit around that, with a bit of resorting to the tediously predictable genetic determinism, behavioural psych plus some biochemical snow jobbery currently beloved of the slimstream.

I wasn't impressed by another appearance of "psychology" with an emphasis mainly on eating as if its a psychological not a physiological impulse. I don't know how much this borrows from ED's, but it's not a good sign.

Eating is not like mood. Analyzing the way (you think) someone eats isn't a form of psycho-analysis.

How much awareness there is of this extent of self fulfilling prophecy is hard to fathom. In the programme a couple of the experts claimed to have had their predictions confirmed, one exclaimed she was happy and reassured by this. What she was on about exactly, went over my head.  

Greedy, lazy are giving way to more subtle inference-mentally below par, emotionally incontinent and/or incompetent. Unedifying though that is, it's movement from the sadistic humiliation and ripping apart of people.

Though mostly made to look stupid, bovine and infantile with liberal use of shot and brass heavy music when on the move, we were at least spared a masochistic parade of fat people abasing themselves, begging for absolution-one must remember to be thankful for small mercies.

The programme showed again why 'obesity' as a field is a self defeating ghetto-assuming that isn't the intent. Metabolic study should be based on anatomy, not size, it's an artificial divide, reducing the ability to perceive real similarity and difference. Creating confusion and false conclusions.

Imagine, not recognizing a slim person's "Hello," as the same as a fat person's "Hello". Falsely investing  bodies/people with health and pathology, corrupts and distorts the interpretation of anything observed in either of them. Disconnecting people from commonality and indeed, universality. 'Obesity' is pointlessly divisive.

For instance diet failure being presented as a characteristic of deathfatz rather than everyone from thin to fat alike.

It would be going too far to say this is the opposite of science, but its up with directly altering the conditions of those you purport to study and reporting findings as intrinsic to your focus.

The three definitions of fat people's purported eating problems/types were;

Feasters - People who once they start eating can't stop. This was said to be down the failure of a gut hormone which signals you to stop.

Emotional Eaters -Those who "used" food to cope/ate in response to stress.

Constant Cravers - Those who felt like eating all the time.

Sounds reasonable. Its not as if what they say has no meaning, however-it would tend to mislead the unwary.

I'm in an interesting position to assess these given my experience with hyperactive hunger/appetite mechanisms. I experienced all three together and had to (re)solve them. Formulating your life and diet around this is repugnant to me and wouldn't have worked.

Looking at weight or even eating in terms of food cannot adequately represent the nature of eating whether normal or disordered. Eating disorders are basically dysfunctions of the hunger/appetite mechanisms, usually caused by trying to control weight via calorie restriction. Forget complex emeashuns for now.

Being fat isn't an ED, though that was the inference, i.e. throwing around the term "overeating", making that an inevitable component of being fat. Speaking as a person who's had an ED, is not necessarily representative of fat people, nor excludes many who aren't. Again, seek and ye shall find what you want to.

I'm sure many if not most of the rest of them could identify with these as well- at varying levels- so could most if not all slim and thin people too. Not only do these not necessarily signify ED's, they can also signify them too! ED's are a question of degree, they aren't special diseases. They're more imbalances. Like having a heightened temperature.

If they'd had representative sample of fat people as well as all weights with honest investigation, they'd have realised that. Of course, ob sci doesn't work like that.

There was some info to be had from this. I was strangely heartened to find that they explained something I learned years ago and have been banging on about. Your ready energy stores. We all know about fat stores on your body, but before you can get to those, you have a system in place to supply you with constant (ready) energy. Kind of like the change you have as everyday spending money.

If you didn't have this system, you'd be in danger of swooning or conking out every time an extra demand was made on your body-one that required any surge in energy. Your (fat) stores aren't that instantly accessible.

Something amused me, they first explained using the 5:2 diet/ intermittent fasting, that during the fast days of 600 cals or under, your body would resort to digging into your fat stores. They used an animated graphic of this and missed out the chump change (ready energy.) They then cut straight to Dr Giles Yeo, who explained it properly-that your body uses up this ready energy first, then goes for your stores-if it needs to make up for any deficit! He seemed a little ticked off and was keen to emphasis the missing point, not sure the presenter (a doctor himself) was getting his point.

He really seemed to know what he was talking about. So why he involved himself with this I'm not entirely sure.

Claiming, this is what makes fat people fat is unconvincing. There are plenty of slimz and thinz who'll tell you they feel hungry all the time, some or other of them are often found eating sweets , chocolates and desserts. Indeed, snacking. It struck me that their bodies too seem to have established this loop where the body seems to have said, "Hey, I can make more use of my chump change loop to cover more of my energy needs."

It doesn't just stabilize fatness, it stabilizes weight, including thin/slimness too. Quite a few people have told me they can only stay slim on a diet of calorie dense or junk food diet-(what you eat) with  occasional veg thrown in. I must admit I find this loop interesting. I've no idea what it means or whether its a good/bad sign or neutral.

The emotional eaters category was misleading. It really meant with certain people, stress triggered their hunger and appetite mechanisms to fire in conjunction. The programme put a selection through a frustrating and therefore stressful driving test.

But that only changed the hunger and appetite (what they ate) levels for some. It was claimed there's a gut hormone, I think it might have been GLP-1, my bad, some times its hard to take it in with the distancing effect of extreme skepticism, interferes with the ability to stop eating.

That could have just been a feature of being in that state. In other words, your biochemistry as cause. So, if you are in a permanent state of anxiety and analysis of your blood shows the preponderance of certain chemicals, then that is assigned as cause, rather than effect, when it could be either. A feature of defining bodies/people as 'disease', their function becomes their 'disease' it's ridiculous.

Getting rid of the triggering of hunger due to my nervous system being in a state where hunger/appetite was being stimulated by (a certain level of) stimulus in my system, was the basis of ending my ED.

I was and still am ecstatic to be liberated from both the ED and being in that state.

Which raised something else which is hard to say even in an FA context, fat people are stuck in and limited by the standards slimz apply to themselves, but look really slack in fat people, seeming to confirm all the abuse we receive.

True. 

The missing service ethic of service means the demand  for people to cease to be fat, doesn't become an instigator of progress. The kind that would be progress for everyone.

This was part one of three, I've yet to see the others. They follow the group to see how they fare with the same old same old.

As if we can't guess.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Insert 'Obese'

Far be it for me to appear to pose as a grammar tyrant given my severe taxing of well, syntax, buuuut the other day I was reading a science paper, I neglected to note, and about the second word was 'obese'. It was just plunked there, in the wrong place. Ever just left your house in a flurry only to trip almost buttock over breast on some mis-laid obstacle?

Whaaaat happened? Did the earth turn?

That's the effect this particular use of 'obese' had on me. I've noticed this compulsive need to keep burping up said terms. There used to be a style rule, I think it's still in play, to avoid redundancy, use a term to establish the subject, then avoid further mention, unless needed as a reminder or if not doing so would cause confusion.

That's really gone out the window with 'obese'/'obesity' hasn't it?

It cannot be written or said enough. If there's a place where its not necessary to insert 'obese'/'obesity, it will be. It's developed the momentum of a compulsion, as in the case of a hygiene OCD.

This hints at perhaps to some, a surprising sense of desperation amongst fat phobes. That despite having virtually everything their own way, the obesers-those who wish to brand people 'obese' all the fracking time-cannot feel any real sense of security. Without continually reminding themselves what they're supposed to feel.

They can't trust that we or they will remember that people aren't simply people, they're 'obese', without continual repetition. 

This is [neurotypical] stimming. It most resembles anchoring.

Yes, I can say stimming, because hand on heart, I noticed it before I knew of the term, and I'd noticed it in neurotypics-(that auto corrected to "neurotics" how very apt).

See, when I was in the young kid phase of trying to work out how things and even being a person worked. Just as you eventually grasp "Lying's always wrong" though fundamental, exceptions which have to be learned, i.e. in the case of sparing people's fee fees.

I noted that the general assumption that we think like taking a walk; start with the first step and keep going putting one foot in front of the other, in the main, didn't appear to tally with reality.

I was stunned to realise that thinking in such a flowing manner seems to be quite difficult, our brains do not appear to be organized in a manner to generate a such.

There are some who are mentally supple and responsive to new information, so whether we lose the ability to do this along the way, or whether that's just cleverness, I'm not sure. 

We muddle along sticking our favourites from the vast array of stock phrasing we pick up to perpetuate an impression of said flowing river of thought. 

Dontcha just love us humans? We are the most.

A lot of these stock phrases struck me as fulfilling some function not necessarily related to their meaning. I had to roll my eyes at some recent so called "research" which claimed anorexics have "autistic traits". As I understand it, autism has a set of human traits at the heart of it. Without this particular conjunction of traits, what you're looking at wouldn't be "autistic" as such.

That's so typical of the way we emotively assign certain perceived characteristics to people outside the pass-for-norms. Or others we pathologize then fail to recognize the same or similar functions we observe in them, in ourselves.

Some have inevitably wised up in this instance-stating the difference between autistic and neurotypic is a question of degree, but I wouldn't put money on that just yet.

I must admit though, I didn't recognize autistic stimming as what I'd observed. I hadn't even given it a name and put it to the back of my mind as it felt kind of frustrating to keep it permanently in view at the time. Even when I heard definitions of what autistic people were doing, the connection wasn't immediate.

As with autistic, neurotypical stimming fulfills many functions. Yes its true that autistic stims include physical movements. Neurotypics have those too, they're just called something else; "self comforting gestures" comes most readily to mind.

Verbal ones especially are to comfort/reassure self and others, transmit a sense of belonging, identity, hegemony, group think. They can be a grounding manoeuvre when you feel unsafe, insecure, unsure, and anchoring, that is a way of re-connecting with a certain desired state or feeling. i.e. if you're flustered and nervous, you may keep repeating something like "Get/pull yourself together" or somesuch.

I swear a lot of the time it seems like the majority of what we say or even think is mostly a rearrangement of stim phrases. If done as required, this is accepted as thinking, communication, learning

A little like an actor repeating a writer's lines, investing it with their particular interpretation-no wonder we so often treat them as if they made it up. They seem like us, lol!

Oh stop.

Anyho, inserting 'obese'/'obesity'; is compulsive stimming and there are others, "personal responsibility's."

It's a compulsive urge to keep reconnecting a mind with whatever 'ob' is supposed to mean. So that you can (remember) to behave accordingly. Self management eh? Seems thinking in terms of this 'obesity' construct doesn't come naturally at all. 

Friday, 23 January 2015

No Point of Comparison

No one wants to let fat be what it is. From letting the process of its creation and actuality be described as is, to permitting people who are fat to be described and defined by themselves along with those able and willing to observe them and their experience objectively.

This sadly still too often includes fat people, activists included. Though in this, the problem comes more from the self estrangement and continued erasure of operating under the same basis of falsehood as everyone else.

The crudest sign of this lack of interest in the veracity of fatness is the ceaseless inept comparisons thrown around helter-skelter. Fatness is routinely dubbed/compared with: an eating disorder, neurosis, chronic disease, addiction (where addiction is being conflated with compulsion), smoking, opiate drug dependence, alcoholism, an audit of mental health, self harm, slow suicide etc.,

Usually, to urge to compare comes from a drive to illuminate through finding similarities with things that may be or have more familiar themes or characteristics. Nothing expresses more the extent to which fat people's self defense has been disengaged, by operating to the mainstream agenda, than these failures of comparison.
 
Let's start with; an eating disorder-fatness is body mass or size, an eating disorder refers to a dysfunctional pattern of eating or non-eating habits. A neurosis- is an imbalance of or in the functioning of the nervous system/ brain. Fatness is the physiology of higher body mass. A chronic disease- chronic disease is disorder of the body's function, that has no cure only treatment. Fatness is an outcome of a body's metabolic self regulation, it's function not dysfunction. An addiction-to mean-compulsion as in "obsessive compulsion" is a repetitive act or set of actions that have attained a self sustaining momentum that's unresponsive to conscious intent to halt it or them. Fatness is the action of physiology not the physiology of an action/ set of. Smoking-smoking is the habit of inhaling and exhaling lit tubers of tobacco through your mouth. Fatness is the continued existence of body weight, above a certain point.

Opiate drug addiction/dependence-the use of this and other intoxicants causes the body to reduce its own internal production of matching/similar chemicals, in this case opiates-to prevent overdose. After the drug exits the system, production is restored. Repeated use leads to breakdown in the the mechanisms that restore production-in those susceptible to this. The body becomes dependent on the external supply. Fatness happens when the body increases its own mass. 

Alcoholism-.........er sorry, no idea of the underlying mechanism of alcohol dependence, above and beyond, the body adapts to the presence of alcohol. Fatness derives from cells the body produces, indeed, is born with. 

Mental health audit-body-weight does not signal mental health any more than dents in the head signal criminal or other inclination. The best signal of mental health is of course patterns of behaviour. Self-harm-refers to acts that seek to damage the individual, such as the cutting of ones flesh or starving oneself. Once a tendency to self harm is activated, usually by a build up of negative stress, the drive seems to be triggering the release of chemicals the body uses to repair. This relieves the stress by providing feelings of relaxation, relief/ even up lift. Being fat is the outcome of the body's internal self-regulatory processes. Slow suicide- is an oxymoron. The one thing that most signals the urge to suicide is an imperative to haste. Any slowdown must reflect the will to live. The urge toward suicide is not usually a cause for opprobrium, but that's not really the point. Fatness is body led and does not express a wish to end life, more likely the opposite on body's part.

The purpose here is to press fatness into the agenda of those making comparisons. That mainly consists of a desire get fat people to accept the unacceptable. To re-formulate the way fat people perceive themselves and are perceived by others. And to quiet the person's own conscience.

The acute ineptness of all this reflects a switching off of internal critical faculties. It's easy to forget that our own minds are the first critic of our own thoughts. When we don't bother, we inevitably spout drivel. What's amazing is how even this level of unthink doesn't prompt laughter, but instead is pandered to and treated as if merits countering and is deserving a full explanation of its vacuousness.

That is what's dubbed, thin privilege. The leeway to be as stupid as you wish to be and have that treated as thoughtful and in good faith. That's the halo of slimness.

Those unembarrassed enough to assert the absence of a basic critique of their own thoughts are unlikely to respond honestly to your careful and earnest assessment of such.

Thursday, 22 January 2015

A Doctor's Advice on Treatment

Had no idea doctors were seen as particularly youthful, I suppose that's reference to the way some practice past the usual retirement age/s. Anyway, I enjoyed perusing this article-it confirmed so many of the things I've already thought or come across and I daresay you too.

Witness doctors apparent points of caution at the prospect of being patients themselves;
  • Usually, more scientific evidence is available about the benefit of a new treatment than its risks and limitations. 
Positive trials are more likely to be published than negative ones.
  • Lab screening or radiological investigations often produce false positive results, suggesting a disease is present when it isn't. 
Which can lead to unnecessary follow-up tests and treatments, each carrying their own risk.
  • CT scanning raises the risk of cancer because of radiation. 
And;
  • Any medical intervention - a test, operation or drug - will have harmful side-effects for some people, even when carried out by the best doctor in the country. 
Okey dokey, those are sound points to review in coming to a decision about accepting treatment. [Though refusing your doctor's recommendation can offend!]

Then there's an excellent pointer to have in mind at all times-what matter's most to you?
What's bothering you the most? Is the doctor clear about what's bothering you most? Will the treatment not just treat the disease but deal with what is bothering you most? Are you well informed about the probabilities of benefit and harm?

How much more pertinent are these questions for fat people facing attempts to present "weight management" as a non-consensual imposition?

When considering treatment;
Are you really sure you want this treatment- and will you blame yourself if it does go wrong?!!!! And How urgently is the treatment needed?
My personal favourite was;
You need absolute numbers, so here are two questions for your doctor:

    If 100 people have this test or treatment, how many of them will have a good result?
    If 100 people have this test or treatment, how many will suffer some harmful consequence?
I knew it!

Apart from Stunkard/ MacLaren-Hume, I've never been able to locate an answer to this question re-weight loss interventions. They never tell you it in this form, assuming they can a lot of the time.

Imagine if all "overweights and obeses" asked doctors that question about "weight  management interventions"? I think we should consider that our duty.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Strange Taboo

It's unacceptable to say that a fat person can eat little compared to saying a slim person can eat a lot. But one rarely referred to taboo is that one can have an irresistible compulsion to eat, but not enjoy eating.

Again, there's little problem with saying that one can have a sexual compulsion-that is an overwhelming desire for sex, or to keep getting sexual relief-orgasm. Seeing as some seem to doubt sexual compulsion.

This experience is far more prevalent than one might think.  For example those who say they "Hurt themselves with food." Seem at least in part to be relaying an irrepressible drive to eat without pleasure.

I had no idea this was so until I let it slip out. The reaction from one girl was so hysterical that I felt need to withdraw it so she'd calm down. Then much later on, I remember discussing this again, after preambling it with that very incident.

As if the word irony had no been invented, a similar thing happened and I was accused of not knowing what I was talking about. Because what I said didn't match the wrong descriptions of ignorant disinterested people, who call the ED shots.

The hot button seems to be food=pleasure. Anything else is somehow unacceptable. Yet my experience is that the pleasure of eating is generated by the correct workings of the mechanics used for eating and digestion.

If your body is out of song then it either isn't generated or felt.

What's even more intriguing is the issue of control.

It's presumed that ED's mirror each other. That they have the same issues and themes despite different context, behaviours and outcomes.

One thing that's most associated with anorexia is control. This is probably due to the worship and fetishization of anorexic behaviour as the only route to inducing deliberate weight loss. Hyperphagic disorder and anything associated with it, is seen as the opposite, out of control, though there are sometimes attempts to press it into the AN mould i.e. fatness is first defined as an ED, which it isn't, then described as trying to gain control by filling a void of despair, like anorexia.

But when it comes to genuinely having a hyperphagic disorder, I'd say the control bit is more likely to be showing through any insistence that one either eats purely out of elective conscious choice, for pleasure, or to "hurt" oneself.  

Ask yourself how many times you hear a hyperphagic say anything but.

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Not Tonight Irene

Fat people suffer as much from poor health as they do from poor image. They also die younger. My mother, always fat, died at 61. She suffered for years from carrying around an extra hundred pounds. She was intelligent, beautiful, loving, kind and industrious, but sadly I lost her too soon due to her being over weight. It is too bad we can't promote a healthier body along with a better image of our body.  ~ Irene
This is the kind of comment caught me unawares from the get go. Here's someone stating that their beloved mother (father/partner/ or other loved one) died of something, yet couldn't seem to care less that there was nothing available to prevent this.

You'd think that would be of primary concern. Instead we get the insipid: "...too bad we can't promote a healthier body along with a better image of our body" and the like. What?

How would "promotion" have reversed her mother's weight by 100lbs? Is this a product launch or a matter of life and death? Perhaps most puzzling of all, why do these people direct the dead hand of their minds at lay people, when it is scientists that produce science?

Legislators/politicians local and national are the ones who influence and decide the allocation of funding for said science, don't you think writing to them might start concentrating minds? Why would a group advocating for the valuing of fat people-so absent from their minds attack said advocacy?

Have you ever heard the like of this elsewhere? Because I most definitely haven't.

Even when you come across people whose relatives have traumatized them through their behaviour under the influence. They still talk with feelings of sadness, regret and love. Even if they ultimately felt they had to disconnect from the person, due to their behaviour.

I know abstinence is bunk, people's assertions that there ought to be more provision for it at least focuses on trying to help the person concerned.

Not people like Irene. Too often, they're curiously disinterested in direct assistance to their loved ones. Nor am I yet to see convincing show of grief;
My mom is slowly killing herself.  She won’t live to old age. How the fuck do you want me to feel?  And she’s not enjoying herself, either. Her joints hurt, she has breathing problems, she can’t find clothes in her size, medications don’t work properly at her weight, and when she needs a surgery she will be at a considerably higher risk of complications.  The FA movement would have me applaud her for this.  Well no.  Fuck that.  She’s my mom, and when she hurts herself she hurts me too.  You wouldn’t stand idly by while your friend committed suicide or spiraled into drug addiction, would you?”
That's exactly what these people do, do, stand idly by, that's what is so shocking about them. Does this person really think their use of "fuck" hides the absence of real emotion?  Her joints could be helped by changes the things going into her body. Her breathing might possibly be eased through exercises and her medications adjusted or other things tried.

I don't and wouldn't applaud the stasis of dieting or be damned. What for?

Why do they continue to draw attention to themselves? Presumably, they do not have a clue as to how they sound. I suspect that's partly down to the unnatural absence of response from fat people to anything fat haters say to us. This was due to the suppression of any remotely contrary feelings about dieting being an article of faith.

I'm sorry for the mother's suffering, but I'm most sorry of all that she has this unit for a child. What's amusing about this is clearly, this person has caught on that there is something profoundly wrong with how these people go on, using their often dead or dying (they say) relatives to concern troll. Or should we say, death troll? This is using the ill health/death of relatives, to tell fat people off for advocating self restoration, respect and care.

Do you feel he's gruff but with a heart of gold? I'm afraid I don't. Perhaps I've been too spoilt by hearing a lifetime of genuine expression of grief and sorrow for loved ones. It's not simply the absence of that, it's the lack of genuine feeling.

You'd have to be a bit if a brute, not to find his unconvincing straining for effect somewhat amusing. The fakeness and lack of humanity engendered by the 'obesity' crusade that seems to warp minds this way. Specifically, accepting the person is disease dehumanizes, not dehumanizing, I mean it removes the humanity from a person and the person who accepts it too.

To accept that, your critical faculties have to be switched off. And that must account for this out of tune reaction. There was controversy when the dsmv proposed enduring grief as a pathological condition to be treated with anti-depressants.

Here's a natural antidote. Get people to see their loved ones as self inflicted disease and voila, no grief. Maybe they could check out their brains to see what area's suppressed and come up with some way of replicating it for the illness of grief.

This is the outcome of avoidance of discomfort. Grief isn't nice, so you don't have to feel it, as long as you see people in the right way.

I was going to say that you cannot grieve a thing, but of course, you can. Come and see me the time when my computer locked and I couldn't use it! Looking up a way through, there was more honest show of grief in others experiencing the same fate, than any of these jokers.

One of the best things about landing on a site like Nurse Naomi's blog about her young daughter is to finally have the privilege of witnessing a person behaving as you'd expect under the circumstances.

Her daughter is a real person, not a cypher or a stick to try and beat someone else with.

She listens and relays what her daughter is experiencing. She describes Hana's feelings in subjective terms and her condition in objective terms. 

She can't sit and wait for science, she's out there researching and scouring the earth for possibilities, leads, anything that might help. Her entreaties are directed at scientists, obviously because they do the science. And she talks of saving Hana.

She seeks to garner attention for the plight of her daughter Hana and others, you know she could not sit idly by. 

And what doesn't she have time for-as far as I know? That's right, FA. Because we aren't the reason why the science in this area is so undeveloped. Hypothalamic obesity was apparently isolated in 1901.
 
Hana of course, has an actual condition. She's not just a person being defined as a condition so there's something to describe.

Trying to save the life of your loved ones with all your might is the least I'd expect you to feel moved to do, according to your abilities. Re-routing the course of metabolic function doesn't bring amateur to mind.

If the Irene's of this world made noise about the absence of any means to save their loved ones and aimed it at those with influence; politicians, medics, public healthists, scientists themselves, metabolic science would have become the worthwhile and important subject I've always suspected it is. That would help anyone reverse weight, whether triggered by tumours or not.

It would attract better minds, and they'd perhaps be an honest humane and progressive discourse, kicking into touch the debased hate-fest that passes for "debate" right now. People like Irene have had a part to play in allowing things to come to this and I can't for the life of me work out why.

So the question is, why do people like "Irene" not know how strange their behaviour is?