Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Anorexia does not give mastery of human metabolic function

Reading the beginning of this reminded me of my own upbringing. On the rare occasions our fruit bowl was empty, we tended to stand around it looking forlorn, as if that would magically produce an apple or orange.

Chocolate cake, jelly and ice cream was also something that happened at parties. And dessert was not part of our cultural cuisine. Not with or after a meal anyhow. My mother spent weekends cooking and par-cooking/preparing food for the week, from scratch. She also worked mostly full-time. She was also fat.

I became concerned with my appetite-of my own volition, at 7, started dieting at 11, and went on to a rigourously healthy diet at 13, when it was not common currency. I know about healthist version of healthy eating.

Emma Woolf, ended up a slim person with anorexia. And I a fat person with orthorexia induced hyperphagia. Tendencies.

I'd appreciate if thin (?) people like EW remembered that just because most people appear to be fatter than them, doesn't mean she has to assign general complaints to "fat" people. The complaining and conversely approval of 7-10 a day was not weight specific thanks.

The only problem I have with it is with healthism, I suspect too often it catches the outcome of a less pressured more secure existence, then reverses that as cause. A more satisfying life makes you less likely to encountered things that pressure and shift metabolic function.  Stress-especially that concerned with your survival- affects your needs and that can lean your tastes towards what will help keep you on a more even keel.

I know she had anorexia bad and in general is not held back by an ignorance of fat people, but can't she at least try to catch herself a bit? She's already boasted about her self restraint, so its not too much to ask is it?

"It's your fault if you're fat is unnecessary." It should really be, "Your weight is your fault." Which includes her. Conversely, switching "weight" to "fat" leaves her out. This kind of self critique at the expense of and through fat people's gotten old too.

It would be nicer if she checked for this kind of leakage, like she presumably checks the balance of her diet.

As with most self unaware fat phobes, she has an obsession with fault-as long as its someone else's- which is so much more irrelevant than they can possibly imagine. We are at fault for injuring ourselves all the time, broken bones, sprained muscles, cuts, bruises etc., no one gives a fig except perhaps to rib us about our clumsiness and its cost to us.

And like it or not, most people are far more directly to culpable for their neuroses than their weight (so what?), whether high or low. Not every one is so blessed with the tendency toward eating disorders.

The blame game here is partly about the desire to make people slim sans the means to do it. Instead we have calorie restriction dieting/exercise bulimia.

I'm mainly wary of tussling with PWA, but I won't back down in from any flagrant BS when that tries to boss. This woman simply hasn't fully recovered from her condition. I'm sure she knows that and that she doesn't really have to. She fits well into a culture that uses the impersonation of anorexia as "weight management".

I also think comparisons between fatness smoking need to stop. Boasting about stopping is also ludicrous. I think you'll find smoking wholly unneeded for existence. Deal with it.

Even someone who's been utterly alienated from their hunger should know that it is innate and not a conscious choice. Nor is smoking "addictive" in any honest sense. That's just something given to those used to their relatively minor distresses being heard. Fat people are no where near as slick at making this kind of demand-when it comes to fatness. Our history of following orders has meant we were told our reactions to being defined as pathological and to calorie restriction to be the fatness in us fighting back.

That we must resist this. We ended up repressing those feelings and experiences almost out of existence because to feel them was to go with fatness. That sounds weird because being told you choose to be fat, when its the last thing on your mind, is weirder.

It's not always easy to revive these flat-lined feelings back into thoughts, let alone words.

That's something the mainstream can't really help with as they find it hard to empathize.

As you know a lot of things are popping up in 'obesity' that are excluded, suppressed (almost) to oblivion elsewhere.

What this shows is not so much that people feel they don't deserve to live or are at fault for their problems. It shows they haven't truly resolved this in their heads. They've just repressed their thoughts contrary to the illness line, hiding them behind the idea of disease as a way of de-stigmatizing. [T/W: Link-standard operational fat phobia]
I’m invited onto a radio discussion on the BBC Nolan show in Belfast, and I find myself arguing once again that we’re responsible for the choices we make, for the food we put in our mouths, and the levels of activity (or inactivity) in our daily lives.

There you have it in her own words. 

This kind of thing is painful and what we find painful we avoid or try to get through quickly, too quickly, assuming its done and dusted.

What we have here is someone exploring her own personal input into her own (genuinely) life threatening condition, using fat people to do this precisely because she's afraid to face what she clearly feels is a possibility. Her attitude to fat people reveals this.

I used to assume 'obesity' was a crude caricature of hyperphagia. Yes but the bones of it-ironically- is what people really see in anorexia (and bulimia). Even this "food addiction" model comes from the attempt to rescue that assumptive basis.

Truth is, fatness is nothing like anorexia, which is a distinct pathology. Fatness is weight. It's a metabolic outcome. Its genesis is not started by conscious decisions like anorexia is in the main. Its more from the body, through its metabolic systems, making some kind of adjustment (or its in the wake of another or other one/s).

That makes it both less serious and harder to change than anorexia, which has (to me) an astonishingly high rate of success through "re-feeding" i.e. eating. It's like imagine you had a load of insomniacs. And, in a supportive atmosphere, encouraged them to sleep and a half to 2/3 got completely or mostly (probably like EW) better!

When you look at the long-term reversal of fatness you are looking at what? People say 5% but that figure came from getting from fat down to a substantive (percentage) weight loss. It did not monitor those people from there. Certainly not for life.

I know everyone has staked everything on 'obesity' being as easy to treat/reverse (overall) as anorexia, but that isn't to be. Its obvious that we are not dealing with opposites the same or similar here, as we all thought. But as usual, those who feel entitled, feel entitled to keep believing. Just as they feel entitled to explanations for their issues that don't make them face up to their worst fears.

This piece shows that this evasion doesn't stop those fears.

In effect its somewhat of a confession, or at least, saying the unsayable: "I'm to blame." Or at least, I think I might be, but cannot say that directly. Like when slim people say "I'm fat." When they know full well they aren't. It gives vent to their problems whilst cushioning the impact.

I don't care to get into that though. It's a conversation people like her, who plough this furrow need to have with themselves. Perhaps with a therapist in situ, in case things get too fraught.

This should help those such as Emma Woolf realise that whether she really knows/ thinks she's to blame or not, doesn't repair her anorexia. Blame doesn't equal knowledge nor does it make diets work. Unless like her you have a specific pathological tendency to succumb to them. 

Friday, 4 April 2014

Bite It

Birmingham, the UK's second city [not the one in Alabamy] has finally noted its density of fast food haunts, decided too high and will hereby restrict further excesses. Yet another case of this arse-faced crusade era's shutting the door after you opened it to allow the horse to bolt in the first place.

The point is not that this should or shouldn't be done, that its good/ bad, will or won't work. Its more, if you insist on a particular course that demands certain actions, plus the avoidance of others. Can't have one without the other.

When you demand people must go to war with their hunger, don't permit your cities to become filled with easily available, universally appealing calorie dense food. This shouldn't be a problem. Being fat is supposedly eating too much/wrongly. The avoidance of this is no issue for slim people, they're already there, which is why they're slim.

Really, the fat stereotype is a shame fuelled exaggeration of human tendencies. We like to have the food we like within easy reach. Ancient compounds unearthed usually find places where energy dense and energy efficient foods were stored. Tubers, starchy root veg, grain stores.

Access to food affects where we live.

What's the hunting like? Can we gather enough produce to keep us going? Is it fertile, what can we plant? If you don't feel comfortable when there's no food in the house, why would that change on a collective basis?

The flaw in the false dichotomy made between slim and fat is exposed by societies creating a flood going against the progress of law they've laid down for fat people. We hear; "Why should we [the unfat] be denied because others [i.e. fat people] can't control themselves?"

Because you insisted weight loss must occur and via one route only. None other should be available. Weight loss should be like this, it should be this bad and ineffective yet can somehow be made to work because um... innumeracy.

I find it hard to care that much about this kind of thing now, it's all too late. When the high streets, especially in lower income areas were filling up with these kinds of outlets. I was already struggling with imposition of lifestyle anorexia-for my sins. This gave me a bad feeling about what was going on around me. I felt it would be yet another obstacle for me and people like me.

We had to accept this because our burden was framed as all about self control-or the failure of it. Though it was demanded that we engage in a wholly unnatural, pathological, punitive, unsustainable stance and were clearly struggling, we were not just on our own fighting against primal forces within we had to add, swimming against the tide of other people's resistance.

No attempt to help us meet the demands placed on us was insignificant enough to be considered. No maintenance of any balance was too minimal to be jettisoned all whilst the cries of crisis got louder and louder. Those less prone to weight gain, instinctively wanted nothing to do with any interference or threat to their needs or desires.

That's about how we're all made.  Fat people just accepted going against essential human nature. No wonder it felt right to dehumanize us.

Having seen all this, I quickly concluded the only feasible solution was through science finding a way or ways to reverse [and advance] weight that didn't require something quite so unfeasible. Something that didn't get in the way of slim/mer society as that was a pointless waste of energy. That "no" had to be accepted.

It hurt to see the remorseless dismantling of everything that helped temper the potential for vested interests to get a formidable grip on our food environment. Whether commercial interests or food fanatics. Especially for ordinary children who were clearly deemed expendable, unworthy of effort for the sake of our sacred covenant with children-to the best we can for them.

No more kids growing plants/vegetables, no more school cookery classes, no more attempts to feed children a balanced meal, etc., etc., I totally get the sentiment people are have about fat acceptance should advocate for the end of food desert, but it is mis-placed. I can put up with a lot, but that is a battle I don't have the heart for. 

All this was a hell of a long time coming. It was totally obvious to me at the time, and most of the time folks could barely manage to give a damn. Even when they could, that was undermined by the "personal responsibility" get out clause (ironic that). You cannot claim we are all islands unto ourselves but we require an environment that respects and supports our innate inclinations. 

I feel like where have you been all this time? People spoke out about drugs infiltrating communities, they spoke about crime, about economic deprivation, but barely a word could be heard about the logic of our environment v demands made. Now because you think fat people are unseemly, you can suddenly come back to life and give a shit? And you expect that to become my life?

Again, no country has managed to sustain a reverse in their rate of fatness, or even slim down those deemed less than 'obese', no one mentions that the whole weight graph is moving to the right, not leaving a gap between the righteous and the sinful bodies.

Those who talk crudely about the "nanny state" are also naive. They don't realise this balance of forces is the so called  'discipline' of previous generations. That "eating competence" as the marvellous Ellen Satter calls it, is not maintained magically from some intrinsic unimpeachable source, it must be cultivated from within and the environment must match that. A history of lack is not that. Poverty is not discipline. Inefficiency of means, isn't self control.

Basic truths about human nature must be recognized, you cannot treat food like Ayn Rand treats human will. We are not creatures solely of elective will, it only feels like that because what will we do have is contrasted with our more unconscious wiring. We are animals who within our internal dynamics have some element of what we can perceive as will power. It's part of the whole of what makes us, it is not the whole. Our will is not linear it is more curved, spiral even. Shaped by and prone to interruption then overthrow by basic instincts.

Declarations of purported self mastery can go twist on that.

Though fat people accepted this ultimately deranged ideologically based proposition and were keen. Nobody else matched that enthusiasm. Before you get to any question of efficacy there's implementation.

I've no desire to fight other people's perfectly natural sense of threat to their ability to nourish themselves (amongst other things) then nor now. As I've said and never wavered from, the ability to adjust weight, forwards or backwards is required-end of story.

So why not just bite that bullet? It is medically necessary due to the central influence of human metabolic function on human function. It is a stepping stone to other things and a route to better medical treatments as promising in its way as the much touted "genetics."

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

The Incredibles

Those cheeky hustlers at wealth watchers (aus) are continuing to mine fat acceptance to shill their worthless, oddly intangible product, (hey were there back in the day). In your face internet!! 

Apparently, we must remember how incredible we are. For real, as I keep mentioning, billions have been pissed away over the years on informing the public of onerously complex tasks like fastening the belt provided in their cars, not drinking alcohol if they intend to go ahead and drive. Or even putting litter in any bins provided and other such tremendously lifestyle rearranging tasks.

Yet, tell fatz to try semi-starvation for life, mainly in a social and media capacity-via a few white coats for good measure, et voila. Generations actually attempt this deranged act of mostly trying to forswear one of the main things that assists the continuation of your existence.

Whilst jogging about and pressing or sitting up or somesuch.

Even after decades of this stigma inducing recklessness, we're still behaving as if we have to argue that this-with the best will in the world-just hasn't worked. In a time where equine strength opiate impersonators are marketed, not for major surgery recovery, second stage cancer or even your chronic pain condition nope, for your little old headache or if your tooths hurt [actually toothache can be a btch].

Even though this could often be relieved, if not ended by just relaxing your head, neck and shoulders.

Bah, there's little "self medication" in that.

Now, what should we do with this incredibleness? Create a functioning post-capitalist paradigm, a formula to end all wars/world poverty once and for all or the sadly still current, cure for cancer?

Nawh.

We should parlay our fat fu into "refusing to give up trying".

Pardon me, wealth hoarders but I've given up on weight loss dieting and I'm not sorry, not one little bit. I don't give a damn if you take away my incredible badge. Here, take it, take it, taaaaaaake it! To sum up;
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.”
W.C. Fields
Well, I'm sure many are feeling me when I say I went boldly and adventurously beyond the damn fool stage. The doors of perception are not only tested by mescaline.

I was torn up by trying to diet, keep up a restrictive diet and the continuous failure of all this and I bravely kept going like an absolute jackass. I used to marvel, how was it possible to get this messed up, without doing anything particularly unrespectable? Like getting high or being sexually voracious, something obvious, to explain my dissolute state.

There have been times when I almost envied drug addicts sense of purpose, so drained and tossed around was I trying to stick to my deranged course of lifestyle anorexia. I refused to give up time and time and time again. I refused.

Until I got to the point where I genuinely feared for my sanity, as the long term build up of anxiety started to implode into some kind of agoraphobia.

I cannot explain it. I was not a fanatic (seriously). I just felt that just as the sun is in the sky and the earth is beneath our feet, if you eat less calories than you expend you must get slim. It's funny, when you think you're doing the right thing and ill effects abound, they become totally disconnected from those acts. You look under every nook and cranny for the sinful, wrong doing that's creating these problems.

Only to finally trip over, it's the 'good' stuff. The things you're supposed to believe in.

What it took to stop trying really shook me up. Unbenknowst to me, all these years of trying meant my mind had fused the very essence of trying hard in order to succeed. That's why so many people can't give up on dieting. It feels like they're giving up on trying at all.

The onus on propping up calorie restriction-ergo not bothering to study fat people and/or dieters means this stuff doesn't tend to come out. 

When I was stopped from "trying" by the effects of that,  my mind seemed to interpret this as the end of the idea of a payoff for sustained effort, can you believe that? It's like a part of me lost faith in concerted effort and I'm not entirely sure I've recovered to the extent of before. Luckily I didn't realise 'till after the process of letting go.

The ad mentions a whole lot of things that show a story of everyday fortitude, including your first kiss (?!) But tell me, if you'd tried a first kiss over 16 solid years, everyday thinking planning scheming and monitoring yourself, your approach your thinking to try and kiss someone, and never quite managed it, don't you think you'd have given it up as a bad job? This is without the necessary parallel of making it ever more unlikely that you'll be kissed, as you fail to realise you've developed increasing desperation that prospective kissers can scent a mile off?

There is an underlying cruelty about continuing to play on this "keep trying" theme. It's what kept many of us to the task way beyond where it was sensible or rational. It's that insidious. 

Weight loss dieting doesn't function. If it did, it wouldn't be necessary. If weight is merely a question of choosing to eat or not, then it would be like a smoker cutting down.

It isn't hard or challenging, it's dysfunctional, pathological and a battle because of that. No amount of excellence can overcome a body that will not fail to defend you against this assault. Sticking with it has produced a degenerate cult(ure) that has regressed our understanding of human biology, the purpose and nature of food, what eating is, its necessity, threatens to label children addicts-something avoided with children addicted to drugs, turned disordered eating into the norm by which normal eating is pathologized against.

And it shows no signs of stopping there.

No wealth counters, the biggest, most courageous, epic thing any serial wld trier can do is to stare into the void, without a planB, a safety net, an alternative and say without bitterness or equivocation;

 "This continued repeatable, entirely predictable not workingness is it."

Thursday, 13 March 2014

How not to promote educational attainment: Have an obesity crusade

Predictably enough this story about lower educational attainment of fat girls is making some noise. Its of course very important that this awful effect of 'obesity' galvanizes more effort to harass fat children/adults and hopefully help the boys join the girls/deal with this terrible scourge.

Only so that fat children/adults can do something about themselves of course, for the motivation, honest. The fanaticism of these people who cannot stop believing in lifestyle anorexia, seems to know, no bounds. Trying to present this as something to do with the (purported) biochemical effects of their 'obese' construct;
"Further work is needed to understand why obesity is negatively related to academic attainment, but it is clear that teenagers, parents, and policymakers in education and public health should be aware of the lifelong educational and economic impact of obesity."
In a way it is. And yes, everyone should know the price fat children/people are paying for being the target of an unethical and reckless crusade which polices some of the sense right out of them. Maybe this can help a few of them to get a hold of themselves, you know, exercise some self discipline. Show us how that's done.

This research obfuscates laughably, "Associations between obesity and academic attainment were less clear in boys."

"Less clear" eh? You can bet if it was good news for them in that, it would be in the conclusions. I'm going to come right out and say, educational attainment in fat boys is not affect by them being fat, in contrast with girls. And this type of finding is not unique;
Obese girls were less likely to enter college after high school than were their nonobese peers, especially when they attended schools in which obesity was relatively uncommon........Obese boys, on the other hand, did not differ from their peers- no matter what their school context-in college enrollment. 
Nor are the shifts in the purported effects of weight over time. 
Over 17 years, low SES has become associated with higher BMI and odds of overweight among Chinese women, whereas high SES remains a risk factor for overweight among Chinese men.
It started off the same for girls as boys, but over that time, those girls from families of higher socioeconomic status diverged markedly from girls from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds.

The fusing of looks with weight and the importance that still plays in girls and women's life chances would be a pretty strong candidate.

Excessive negative stress can play a major role in undermining the ability to learn. It can literally stop the brain from functioning properly especially when combined with added stress on top of that, such as having to take in and process information quickly for sitting exams to settle a young person's future.

I have always said the reason FA is dominated by women is girls and women still diet tend to diet more than boys and from younger ages. The reality of attempts at restriction over years, derails the cultivation of belief in it that can linger more readily in those not so exposed. 

Dieting is a failed strategy. Its rate of failure is so unspeakably bad-in terms of medium to long term change, let alone short-that the likelihood of long term weight change of a significant amount is barely of statistical significance. Even if we take Stunkard's 95%, that means every attempt has about a 1 in 20 chance of reaching a slim(ish) goal weight.

Every time.

Now I know you know this, I'm not going to bore you for the millionth time. My point is if you like so many fat women started dieting in childhood, in my case 11, then by the time you get to the latter secondary school years, you are already a proven failure. To yourself.

The extent to which this undermines a girl's educational attainment will wary, it depends on how much there is to interrupt this pretty key fail.

Then there's the fact that doing something over and over again, without making a proper assessment of the true result of your actions, that is basically defines the actions of an idiot.

To remain positive about dieting, requires you to unwittingly fool yourself. This does not go unnoticed by the part of your mind that you are not wholly the ruler of. Often imperceptibly adding to your burden of shame.

The idea that if you think positive you can alter probability is mathematically unsound. Though counting calories may help maintain a suppleness with basic maths. Though it didn't with me. I think the sense of crippling inadequacy and anxiety outstripped that benefit.

Something I've never seen elsewhere is the rejection of your body, the suppression of your feelings about what's happening and the inability to acknowledge the true results, undermines the basis of many people's intellectual attainment.

Self analysis.

The ability to feel your feelings and to categorize and describe them. To assess what is happening to you and to think about what it means, teaches you to understand things about others. It extends gives your store of deep meaning and understanding of things that are unsaid, or seemingly unsayable.

The need to deny the true effects of your actions, to put a positive spin on it can add a strangely stiff, unbending aspect to your mind. Like one grown middle aged and safe before its time.

I can't pretend I don't feel this is yet another attempt to use 'research' to tell fat people and children, who are what they are. I've seen it all before. This is how it works.

It's great that more people are doing some serious analysis of this kind of thing, I hope they know just how urgent it's becoming, to not allow fat children to be dragged down further by this crusade. And to rescue those who have.

Saturday, 8 March 2014

Hunger/Addiction

I've tried to draw attention to something over the years: Fat people have been spectacularly game.

In a society when people drug everything from their moods to reaching for a pill 'cos they've got a 'ickle head/tummy/butt boo boo. Fat people were told er, *you people are too much, you need to starve and run around till you've expended your largesse.* Then latterly, * you just need to spend your whole life feeling half starved a lifestyle change*.

Our response to this request was: "Okay, if you say our bodies are a problem doc etc., you must be right. You all seem like reasonable nice people. We'll do as you ask!"And we did.

Just. Like. That.

Not only did we accept such an insult to our form and person. We accepted the unnatural and instinctively disgusting plan of weight loss dieting.

Despite this not even this tender-hearted enthusiasm could make such dysfunction viable. Aiming to stay in a state of hunger is unnatural and pathological.That means it moves towards unhealth and ultimately death. Not always that ultimately. Some anorexics actually die the young deaths so many are desperate for fat people to.

But the point is we really, really, really tried, over and over again. Without the millions, yes, millions spent, telling people to put their litter in the bins provided... rather than on the ground...which will then have to be picked up by someone and put in a bin......

We starved, swooned, dieted, sweated, wired jaws, took pills, ran about, had organs banded, re-routed and removed. And that's only some of the least unseemly!

All because you know. When someone tells you on good authority that your body's all wrong and that seems reasonable and you know they're good people, it probably is.

The pathology of open-ended hunger used to be readily understood. And probably still is in countries where starvation is a more current or recent threat. But not in more sophisticated realms, no we aren't allowed to state openly that the cultivation of unending states of hunger is undesirable and unsustainable. The body is well constructed to defend against it.

In lieu of this agreed recognition of obvious fact. There needs to be an explanation for people's now seemingly inexplicable attachment to food.

Addiction.

You do not have hunger-a signal that your body requires nutritional replenishment, mainly made up of energy. No, your hobby of eating has hi-jacked your brain and you are now allowing it to do you the harm of 'obesity' blah, blah, blah shoddy pseudo-science emotive 'addiction' criteria. 

Regardless of whether weight is a real question for you or not, the answer's most definitely not a stat of proto-anorexia. Turns out you have to have some susceptibility for that to be remotely possible. Enough to stay this side of safe and sane yet stay on a diet for life. Who has that? Just be hungry all the time, but eat, unsatisfyingly, things you may or may not wish to eat and don't eat things you may well feel to eat. And go for the burn.

What makes me laugh is that we thought that was perfectly reasonable for so long. Not other people, who could at least preach fatuously in ignorance of your pain and discomfort, whilst taking their pills for oh, just about anything remotely disagreeable to them.....which less face it is many things a whole lot less bothersome than knawing crazy making hunger.

Has any one said hunger can make you crazy? Resisting the pulsing drive to fulfill it can literally drive you out of your mind? Even if you have such a mental block that it feels like you can barely manage to eat? Those recommending it, should try it. For a limited period, just to get a feel of never being free of hunger.

I don't mean no food-that's relatively easy once you get going. I'm talking about eating inadequately, always being dissatisfied, irritable. Eating things you don't want to eat and not eating things you do.

It's not just the psychology, it's the stripping of some emotional ballast. That increases your sense of vulnerability. The absence of the pleasure of fulfilling a necessary drive, properly. You do know the satisfaction of your hunger is part of your daily pleasure quotient? And that when it's undermined you acquire a pleasure deficit? i.e. your mood starts to sink.  In the end you'll be reaching for something to end the torment of tussling with yourself, even more than the actual physical feeling of hunger.

Being ravished by hunger is emotional.

Dodging it is boring. It repeatedly takes over your mind to the extent that you find it difficult to focus on other things. At some point you'll find there's no free bits of brain left to hold other thoughts, so much of it has been taken over by the imperative to just relieve this damn nagging urge. Its the imperative to do something that you cannot (won't) do that's even more wearying than the hunger itself.

Hurting yourself makes you feel very sorry for yourself indeed. The one safe space, yourself is no more. The one person who should nurture take care of you, is the one who's denying you and letting you suffer, for what? It's humiliating. That's the so called shame of eating disorders, anorexia-the way we're always told what genius high achieving in control anorexics are. And the poor 'over' eaters who are just ashamed they eat too damn much.

NO.

They're both ashamed because something that they were born able to do, they've managed to mess up. That it's for your weight, your "health" doesn't mean shit. You can't even eat properly, you can't meet your own needs, you're incompetent enough to have dropped that ball?!

When you are hungry enough often enough, you can forget.....you do forget....in the end you just don't care. You are too beaten and exhausted to carry on. What it for anyway? You just want your brain back, to feel alive again. To know what it feels like not to have that unchanging feeling in the background. To be able to think about something else to be able to feel something else. To not have your mind and body hi-jacked by a primal urge that you're resisting. 

This is what people mean when they allude to food addiction/overeating whether they quite realise I don't know.

Surely not? Surely "food addiction" is excess, but what is excess? Who defines it when weight is deemed the direct indicator of intake? Consider the way weight loss diet defenders think. How they refuse to acknowledge the failure of their favoured strategy, claiming its actually almost 100% success and the fault is fat people lack stoicism.
(*)
If you re-frame hunger as 'addiction' somehow you can re-frame your battle with hunger as an addict resisting the urge to fulfill an acquired craving. This will give you the same magic that addicts have when they go cold turkey (Ummmm turkeeeey). Which incidentally is FN. Well, they can use drugs to help them get off the drugs can't they?

It's a plan. Just like the one where you're supposed to tell yourself its not a diet, it's a "lifestyle choice." It's not hunger, it's addiction. It's not real hunger, look at the size of you! Which means you know, you can take drugs...for your addiction

I remember years ago, in my dieting days, becoming intensely frustrated and enraged, considering an overview of ceaseless attempts to get on-and stay on the straight and narrow yet again.

I remember thinking loudly, "the only way I'm going to be able to stick to this is if I was on heroin!!!*^$"

I weighed it up coolly. Heroin is highly addictive-but, having survived so many wretched attempts at self-enforced hunger how bad could it be?

I giggled. I so wasn't going to find out.

I couldn't even take diet pills.

* Decided to take this line out, it could be read as attacking drug addicts. That wasn't my feeling or my point. I was referring more to those who use drugs to ease minor aches, pains or their emotional issues, rather than alter aspects of their character personality or self-use often hiding behind 'illness' for that purpose.Then feel bad about their own lack of stoicism and outsource their own shame to fat people.

The problem with that is not that kind of drug seeking in itself it's that their attitude and framing squeezes out what is a necessary self critique they're avoiding and not resolved in their own minds. What they are saying to fat people displays this.

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

Who asked you?

It's a general rule that fat phobes are always using fat people as a canvas on which to project and talk about themselves; what they perceive as their own needs or what's good for them. Here's an example of this condescending projection from some random fat hating tool laying down what fat people are and are not experiencing according to his very good self. 

He patiently attempts to explain what manners are-well we might not know facing an onslaught of impertinent outflow such as this- plus a crash course in what a bedside manner is and what's an acceptable version of that is and how we are not actually experiencing anything in our befatted heads. Because he says so.

All bow down to his spectacular irrelevance.

He takes for granted that we haven't had sufficient experience with the medical profession, despite our apparently unhealthful self affliction.

From people who demonstrate their impeccable judgement by going along with the definition of people as disease (and then bleat stupidly when the med prof run with that.) Who claim without shame that a habit of drinking an excess of alcohol is just like the processes of hunger, eating, digestion, metabolism and weight, which they brilliantly conflate into one thing.

With straight faces.

You always have to find the key to what fat phobic bleats are really about. There's always something at stake for fat phobes and however minimal it is and it is usually. They just feel its oh so important for fat people to sacrifice themselves for this non-entity of a cause. It's never about fat people or what might be best for us, though it tries pathetically to pose as such. Out of practice makes unconvincing.

I'm thinking this is likely to be the monay shot;
Even if we already know that some of these things are bad for us, our doctors still tell us, because hearing these things from a doctor can often instill us with the fear-based motivation we could not find within ourselves.
And due to that incontinent sense of entitlement of "we", fat people should be harangued ceaselessly. Just for "we."

That's the view from a person who isn't fat. But we're supposed to mistake it for universal. Doctors and their "evidence-based" magic! It's been 'proven' that a doc talking about your weight means success in lifestyle-anorexia.

What fat people want is to be heard. A visit to the doctor's called a consultation, because you consult with your doctor about symptoms you actually have. They need to hear what fat people have to say. Not impose their own fatuous monologue brooking no response or challenge. 

You do not go to your doctor to hear a fictionalized version of your body, habits and life and assertions of 'advice' you know doesn't work and has done you harm. And how people who dispense pills for every ache and pain, think a life time of semi-starved hunger dodging ain't nothing but a little thing (yeah, because they've got no pills to dole out for that). 

Despite what this chat may be perceived to do or not do for those who aren't fat. They can arrange to experience the novelty of docs socking it to those them if that's what they so desperately want. [Just not with help from us any more. And yes, you're going to miss that.] Of course they don't want that. They want YOU to dread another tedious waylaying because that's somehow essential to the plot of the story.

Any participation in this Caucasian-style hoodoo investment in medical priests doctors should be strictly voluntary. Encouraging the idea that doctors have powers they don't have is part of the problem. Reliance on shock and fear rather than self awareness is another. What sort of  practice of medicine is that?

We belong to ourselves, we're supposed to have some clue about how we feel and what leads to how we are currently feeling. That's not a panacea to health nor always possible or tolerable, but I really find it peculiar that so many people have to go to the doctor to be told what size they are, or how unfit they may or may not be.

Setting up fat people to take a fall, on the off chance of others experiencing some "fear-based" discouragement to not eat, exercise or "reverse thinspo" as the experts call it, was not our plan. Therefore we need have no loyalty to it. Take care of your own self maintainence. 

We signed on for weight reduction, for fitting in and we worked very hard, many of us gave it everything we had, not to be sacrificed for an all around failed strategy. To achieve something we thought was positive.

Those who are not fat have become too reliant on the stigmatization, harassment and sense of defeat of others, are not owed it, they were unwise to develop dependence, let them break it. 

So, no, we cannot pretend not to know what we know, for you. To not experience what we've experienced and are still experiencing for you. We cannot turn ourselves into mung beans, on the off chance that this will help you to remain/regain slimness. We have our own needs and if that's not good for you, that's not our problem.

Not only has this 'obesity' as reverse-thinspo plan failed, it's an immoral plan.

Get a new one. This one's on its way out. No matter what you say.

Tuesday, 4 March 2014

Testing the Limits of Hubris

The author of this article has responded to the comments both for and against. I can't figure how to link specifically so I'll copy it's main points;
"thrawnger"
This piece was originally published elsewhere under a different title. The WP changed the title, did away with the pseudonym ("the patient" is, to me, much less personal), and thereby changed the perspective of the story. If you..... re-read the story, you will find that I made an effort NOT to actually voice my own thoughts during the the description of the work-up; I don't consider being "momentarily put off', "trying to get a sense of him as a person,' and 'leaving me to reflect on his plight' as being synonymous with having the limits of my compassion tested, nor being a bigot. I knew that this story would provoke comments, because the patient himself provoked comments -- he is us. We all have a burden in life; his was just larger and more apparent than most. The surgeon and the secretary were guilty of being judgmental and critical (much like some of the comments about my character here) because they were forgetting the man inside the patient. I cannot share the details of the other things I learned about "the patient" -- particularly events that occurred in his past that might explain his eating addiction -- anymore than I had space to share the facts that he told me himself about eating 8,000 calories daily to numb the pain and that he asked for me by name on subsequent visits because he sensed I was much more interested in helping him than in judging him and finding him flawed. To address a few other concerns mentioned, he had a team approach to his inpatient care after going upstairs. .......This story was an attempt to relate a difficult encounter honestly and factually so that people (including me) could examine their own prejudices. It looks like it worked.
Fat phobia is the default. Its more disconcerting when not or hardly there. Like the prank where you land on your behind because your chair was swiped as you went to sit on it. 

Despite this ubiquity, it's still an affront and obvious. Perhaps the dismissal of fat people means people don't trust us to be able to hear such clanging chimes of judgement, if they've affected not to.

In this case, the author "Edward Thompson" may have imagined his even tone hid more than it did. That the guy asked for him is not much of a recommendation. Its in comparison with a surround of others who have maintained less of a hold on themselves. It may be appreciated, but its still not good enough.

In a way, I can stretch to his perspective. I know the medical profession as the prime movers in this campaign of fat hatred-short of some of those dabbling in the dubious field of 'obesity'.

I'm unsure what to make of some fat activist's reactions. If they feel that badly for those at the top end of the weight spectrum, why aren't they; a) advocating openly for proper scientific research into metabolic function, rather than behaving as if being fat is like being gay? [Not even being gay is like being gay in that sense] and b) why won't they accept the medical profession's role in legitimizing the 'obesity' tirade? Why keep making excuses for them and trying to make this all about the slimming industry?

I hold no truck with them,  never have, but, Poison Ivy is not The Joker. 

The article is valuable because it tells us exactly why the medical profession feels so much resentment towards fatness. And no its not "societal attitudes" or "what they're taught in medical school" we're deemed inconvenient, extra work;
Facing him.......I’m not sure just where to start the examination, and when I begin, my hands look small and insignificant against the panorama of skin....It’s hard to tell, exactly....[where] pain is coming from.....We try a chest X-ray, turning up the power to the maximum setting. All we see is white: The patient’s body is just too thick to allow standard X-rays to penetrate to the bones....Morphine at doses high enough to make me dance on tables merely makes him a bit drowsy.

Finally, we move an ultrasound machine into his room — it barely fits between the bed and the wall — and the technician goes in to take some diagnostic images. Minutes later, he emerges.
“I need to get the radiologist to help me,” he says. “This is impossible.” A half-hour later, the chief of radiology comes out of the room, rings of sweat under his arms. “I think we have something,” he says. “A gallstone.” “Don’t put him in a room right over the ER,” whispers the unit secretary to the admission clerk. “The floor won’t support him. He’ll come crashing through and kill us all.” Finally, a slew of huffing, puffing, grunting attendants wheel him down the hall....
Where's room here to cut a dash? Nothing fits, there's extra work, hard work and sweat. Its labour intensive, maybe most importantly of all, nerve wracking, draining. How to negotiate bodies that look and feel different. Stuff's not where its supposed to be, stuff is there that's not supposed to be. How to find out what's wrong and perform your wonders and look aptly omnipotent?

You could overdose the person trying to anesthetize them, it goes on and on and on and on.

It feels to them like fat people change the nature of medicine. It becomes more manual labour. It's as if fat people reduce the value of medicine, it's sense of its own dignity, it's haughtiness takes a knock, becoming more earth bound. Who knows, that may affects the image of the profession, the overall esteem in which its held.

All because people want to eat too much and sit on their fat arses!!! Our bodies feel like an act of aggression to them. They feel sorry for themselves. Why is this/are we spoiling it for them?

Really though, they've had a long time to gear up for this. Weight watchers started in the early 1960's in the US and came to the UK in 1969. When it was clear western [model] societies were gearing up for a weight spike, in the 1970's the medical profession needed to get real and insist 'obesity' or preferably metabolic science became a priority, if they felt so badly about fat bodies. Making sure to follow that up with pointed comments about why was no progress being made etc.,

Instead, they chose the route we are on, convincing themselves they had the power to make success out of failure. They thought their support of chivvying and health hype could do better than fat people's strenuous often self willed efforts. They've continued the weight loss dieting fantasy much in that vain, even to the extent of ushering in fast food giants onto hospital premises (including children's) in the 80's and 90's. They had it in hand right?

Between them and the fat hating public, they'd soon break our will to eat. We were under their thumb.

The medical profession know calorie restriction has failed, they've known for decades.They simply refused to accept it, because, well.....they don't have to. Who's going to make them? Either they have to  sweat or fat people do, why shouldn't it be fat people?

Weight loss dieting held in place by stigma that could repress societal weight gain, rather like homophobia held the expression of homosexuality in check. Disappointment just seems to make them and everyone else all the more determined to cling on to delusion of eventual victory.

It's somewhat amusing, the new desperate thrust to brand fat people 'addicts' when it is those who adhere to calorie restriction delusion that fit the premise of faux addiction that's so au courant. Except, instead of damaging themselves to pursue this dependence, it's someone else. Which means they have more stamina for it obviously. Like the man featured in this report. People like him pay most of all for the lack of rigourous objective study. Or should I say the need to insist fatness is a direct elective choice.

The profession bleat when they feel inconvenienced when reality impinges. So perhaps their resolve to throw fat people to the wind will crumble. 

People who's metabolism is affected by their experiences, like this man are suffering whilst being accused of deliberately choosing to be a problem. It's not that people like him reach for food to soothe their pain as they're told, it's that their body awakens its own pathways to this, instinctively.

What it needs to bring about the changes it needs to absorb that; extra calories and/or lowered activity, biochemical changes in everything from their yes glandular activity to their cardiovascular function,  follows in the wake of that.

It's not "food addiction", that's just trying to rejig gluttony in order to preserve dieting as lifestyle change/weight management or whatever. This kind of response comes from the whole body. It doesn't lend itself to crude partial attacks on part of the process. The reversal needs to get the body working as one. We have no precedent for this kind of thing. Weight is unique and must be understood and defined on its own terms.

Given the make up of the profession and the way it has successfully helped to manipulate public opinion, taking advantage of the bully and shit in all of us, there's not much prospect of change unless enough people in the profession rebel and fat people stand their ground.

The latter will probably be what brings about the former. The professionals only have unbidden 'compassion' for those with social value.

Fat have behaved superbly in many respects and when we wake up to that we will be unstoppable. But we could still listen better to those who are in thrall to this loopy cultism.

Even as a youth, the extent of medical anger and disgust just didn't make sense. These are people who collect and examine samples of your piss and shit. They deal with all sorts of necrotic pus filled matter. Things you and I could barely imagine. Did you notice that? No, you wouldn't, because they don't go on about it.

So when they kick off on like a bunch of permanently tantrum throwing toddlers over your fat arse, you have to know something unusual is up. Do them the honour of hearing that and stop making excuses for them. They honestly are better than that. Have a bit of respect for them!

I honestly do not think they can make the change without fat people's help. I'm being serious about that. They need us to make a sort of intervention. No one else is going to drive this.

Reporting on some of the staff below him as judgey; "they were forgetting the man inside the patient." Well, who was intimately part of defining the (wo)man out of the patient in the first place? 

Medical outliers frame any state or condition. They help define its parameters, the range of difference in human function. Therefore, they help us all to know our amazing anatomy and ourselves.  Focus on them, inadvertently humanizes, bringing them firmly into our focus, getting us used to them. Framing them in the cooler gaze of objectivity.  

Which calms everyone down.

Often they are over-fixated on, the most glaring exception I've ever known is 'obesity'. Where they are most excluded of all. Hidden away. Turned into spectres haunting lesser fatz in case they do not continue to "motivate" themselves, to avoid their fate.  

Signing up for "food addiction" with its complement of pseudo science is just prolonging the inevitable at other people's expense.

The whole thing is a stupid mess and there's only one way out. The most obscene thing of all. The truth.