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.

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Traci Mann's Secrets

It's usually worth reading the admirable Traci Mann on diets especially, as she's one of those rarities who has the moxie to just go with the truth about eating and weight. She has a new book out, "Secrets from the Eating Lab", I'd definitely have a look. This article and interview contains some telling details.

A few points first. Diet-as in what you eat-can have "types", weight loss dieting though is purely singular. It is one thing and one thing only-consuming too few calories for your body to sustain its [current] mass. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your pin.

What we’re told are “types” of [weight loss] diet are mainly about desperate attempts to increase the body's tolerance of diets. For example by manipulating appetite- the ratio of macro and other nutrients you eat.

High-protein [weight loss] diets appeal to those whose appetites favour protein rich foods. High carb diets make use of those whose leanings are towards carbohydrate rich foods and so on. The aim is to increase moral. Dieting is very morale sapping due to it usually being so unpleasant. 

Mann says something amusing “no one has any willpower”. I’m presuming that references dieting’s failure of everybody. Some favoured bull is spread around-that above a certain weight you’re unlikely to lose enough to become slim.
 
That's misleading, it's equally true of all weights, including thin people repeatedly shedding and re-shedding a few pounds. Obviously, if you're always thin/slim then that failure isn't apparent. The same mechanics in all of us is producing the same outcome, restoration of each size's starting mass or thereabouts.

Willful delusion forces such obvious failure to be cast elsewhere, in this case onto the dieter. That also distracts from questioning the principle of hunger-blocking as weight regulation.

Dieting becomes like god, it can never truly fail, only sinful humans fail it. 

Actually, dieting via its inherent dysfunction demands and uses up tremendous amounts of will power, it's a-lead your horse to water but can’t make it drink-type situation. Merely leading [and holding] the horse, i.e. your body to starvation drains will power to little productive end.

Dieting is broken and pretty much unfixable, certainly as a general technique, its existence doesn't even make sense. If weight is all about conscious decision-making, then stop making that decision-the end. No need for a plan beyond that.

The plan reflects the fact that hunger is not generated in the conscious mind.

It’s worth remembering not to think in terms of [why] the body fails diets, when it’s the other way around. Diets fail the body. The primacy of the body over dieting needs to be reasserted. The body does not have to answer for it's failure.
When you are dieting.......your brain becomes overly responsive to food, and especially to tasty looking food. But you don't just notice it — it actually begins to look more appetizing and tempting.
This is an action of your nervous system-your brain is the primary hub of that of course. People seem to find it hard to grasp that because all this activity operates through your own information superhighway-your nervous system-that the action of dieting, more specifically your body's response to it, can literally change the way you see, perceive and even  seeming to put thoughts in your head.

You may also remember that this feature was identified as one of the problematic eater types in that BBC Horizon doc. And that I had this exact problem as one symptom of a hyperphagic eating disorder. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a facet of Georgia Davis’s metabolic problems-and others like her.

Mann describes this as increasing [eating’s] “reward value”. I disagree; it increases the imperative to eat. In other words, it’s like having the munchies when you smoke a blunt, or the action of an overactive bladder where the urge is overpowering, even when your bladder is empty.

It’s not that eating becomes more enjoyable-it doesn't necessarily at all-it’s that the urge continues to recruit more and more nervous circuits in your brain-in other words the urge takes it over. Your will is literally overpowered and it becomes too uncomfortable to the point of distressing not too go with it.

Relief of such discomfort is hardly about pleasure. It feels way more compelling than normal hunger. Though I get that's a difficult concept for many.


As for the hormones, I’m not hot on them, but that seems more a register of your depleted energy, framing them as cause. Iow, if I jumped out at you-shocking you, your feelings would be expressed by chemical release, that didn’t cause your fright; that’s how your body both signals and registers it.

These hormones don't stop diets working, they're signalling your body's defensive response to deprivation.

Energy conservation-the body adapting to less by using less energy to function-is yet another defense-they are multifarious, showing the body is really designed to resist starvation and why it so often succeeds. This is often put down to saving you from famine, it could just as well be a defense against anorexia too, as that is a build up of a compulsion to starve, which can also takes over a person's brain. 

One of the things stopping anorexics perishing ever more quickly is this energy conservation.

“How could it [work]when you have to fight against all of that?”

Exactly. When we are this designed against proto-anorexia, it is definitely the wrong way, [not the only way]. 

There is absolutely no reason why reversal of weight must only occur through hunger blocking, unless that in itself is the true aim.

She makes a brilliant observation about the experience of dieting in a way that I hope becomes the norm.
Let's say you're in a meeting, and someone brings in a box of doughnuts. If you're dieting, now you need to resist a doughnut. That is going to take many, many acts of self-control. You don't just resist it when it comes into the room — you resist it when you look up and notice it, and that might happen 19 times, or 90 times. But if you eat it on the 20th time, it doesn't matter how good your willpower was. If you end up eating it, you don't get credit for having resisted it all those times. In virtually any other arena, that would be an A+, but in eating that's an F.
Yes! Not only is this an acute representation of dieting’s flawed hypothesis, it helps tells us what anorexia is. You aren't simply saying  no repeatedly, you are repeatedly blocking an impulse-that of hunger. At some point, this repetition becomes varying degrees of compulsive in certain subsets.

Isn't that extraordinary?

Totally unexpected. This is what we want to happen when we are trying to master a skill! Who'd have thought it could ever spontaneously self-trigger toward such a devastating end?

That could explain why many PWA can get to feeling agonies of hunger, but somehow cannot act on that. Continual blocking builds a wall between the feeling and its response.

It’s like resisting the urge to sleep. No one feels it’s purely about self control to miss sleep to do other things. It’s recognized that there’s a trade off in terms of tiredness. The absence of a sense of consequence from thwarting hunger, produces unnecessary misunderstandings.

Nor is it "impossible" to reverse weight, this simply isn't the right channel.The assessment of dieting's efficacy [or lack of it] is probabilistic. The odds of achieving it via calorie restriction dieting is very thin [yea]. If people want better, they'll have to lobby for genuine ways and means which are entirely possible. 

Thursday, 21 May 2015

Don't want to be your kind of slim

Reverse thinspo seems to be going mainstream. That's when a person, often slim but also not, uses their negative reaction to fat people to ward off weight gain. It's all very superstitious. 

In some ways I get that, I too never want to develop the slim haloed/thin privileged mentality.

I discovered this by the time I was about 14, despite feeling I could have considered giving up a limb to be slim [yez].

Though there's much collusion on the pity party versions of fat experience. I'm quite thankful for having been fat, because it's meant I don't have to participate in all sorts of odd and tedious hookum that we will all have to get over at some point or other.


E.g. I don't have to unconvincingly pretend that situations/states of being are diseases when they aren't.

Nor do that most people don't have a hand in their own neuroses. And that's okay, we aren't perfect, we mess up in ways we don't intend. Just as we slip and trip over and break, sprain, twist whatever.

I don't have to pretend no solution to a health issue =incurable that's given me quiet hope at some crucial times. I don't have to get caught up with status games with various neurotic ailments, treat them with any reverence. I don't have to indulge in breathtaking insensitivity toward those suffering with cancer.

Invoking them in grotesque games of false equivalence.

I have a greater tolerance for being unsure, imperfect, human, sublimating this disbelief into convenient lies so completely that I don't realise its there, until it leaks out onto some random group of people assigned false inferiority. 

I don't have to overrate 'innocence' as some kind of gold standard of human worth. Don't have to give a shit about the weird currency 'addict' has somehow picked up either. 

Being slim is fine. I spent a long time trying to slim down and I've made no secret of that. What curls my gills is the mentality that too many slim people allow themselves to develop as a side effect of their place in whole 'obesity'/weight-as-identity melange.

This undoubtedly demeans and shows them up, exposing a neediness that isn't apparent to them. 

You can keep all that with my complements.......

Tuesday, 12 May 2015

The Obesity Construct is Blasphemy is it not?

Anything and everything is prostituted in service of seeking to justify re-defining human beings as disease. And why this is the way to alter metabolic function to produce desired outcomes. Go figure.

Now I'm atheistic, but one thing I've wondered for a time is why god-botherers don't find the construct of @besity blasphemous, basically outraging against a sacred entity. I have to admit, I don't really care. It's more academic on my part, but I have to wonder whether this is another example of people who talk the talk and are even into and have an emotional attachment to their ideology/set of ideas.

But somehow don't actually think about, through or with them.

i.e. the old the death penalty for even heinous crimes is an abomination. The death penalty without trial for your metabolic function/not being able to tolerate a life of starvation? Fine! Or child welfare is my priority, let's brand children subhuman targets and encourage them to avoid bullying by starving themselves and so forth.

It's none too surprising then that some feel the need to try "@besity is against x holy books sanctity of the human body" etc.,

This is a weak effort I must say. It's clear that the culture of fitness is flagrantly idolatrous. Xtians and others I fancy believe they're made in the image of him upstairs. If they're disease.....well....need I say more?

I'm genuinely curious.

Friday, 8 May 2015

If David Katz Really Wants Children to Reverse Their Weight, He Should Find Effective Ways

Self important medical preacher, David Katz, who wishes to get doctors into every nook and cranny of your existence in order to rule you better, wishes to advance the failed strategy of calorie restriction, via the usual dumping of blame on anyone else but people like himself.

It's got to be someone else's fault, or people like himself would have to be wrong. 

How to get specifically him in the news? Coin a phrase "obliviobesity" geddit?? That's oblivion + 'obesity.'

Or parents' failure to see their own children through the eyes of weight. This says Katz, is why 'obesity'. Those parents who brand their children disease, and allow people like him to dictate their parental relationship-have children who are more likely to "try weight loss."

That means weight loss dieting, which of course has little guarantee of success. Often commitment to keep trying weight loss dieting, creates depression and other neuroses, i.e. eating disorders. You often end up with a mish-mash of them together. At times as a result of the mere threat of it and/or its regular aftermath of increased storage of energy.

After spending years in this cycle. I had to undo it all, as it had become intolerable to my nervous system. I had to restore some semblance of balance to it. Without help from the likes of him.

I was able to, because I stumbled over something that worked. Though it wasn't easy, that didn't matter, I was used to trying hard and what I was doing was restorative, so rewarding in itself. What I was doing made sense to me. I found an option that wasn't provided by the medical establishment such as himself. That was empowering in a way what he's promoting never was.

Which is another thing any parent should always take into account. 

Here hangs a lesson. Find non-invasive, non social engineering, individual ways to reverse weight that's effective not punitive. And people of all ages, from child to aged will do it, on their own, without any need for any interference from him.

Thursday, 7 May 2015

Dr. Sharma Says: Get off Your Knees Fatz

Well, well, well. Here's one for you self hating fatz types especially. Your friend Dr. Sharma is finally admitting that if you do not stop playing 'obese' and divest yourselves of unremitting shame, you'll continue to get what you've already gotten-the sharp end of a very long pole up your posterior end;
the only thing that will change this is when people living with obesity stand up for themselves and get “engaged”....
Got that?

We tried to tell you! Fat people's acquiescence to abusive handling is why we are in the dirt and continue to be, not due to any occasional outbreaks of resistance. If you've spent your life in abject surrender-and that brings you wrath-then surrender is the problem not the solution. No matter the dissonance that provokes in those who can't tell the difference between what feels right-because they're doing as their told-and a more rational take.

The cheeky buzzard even has the nerve to say;
It is evident that the bias, shame, blame, and discrimination that surrounds obesity is so pervasive that very few people living with this disease apparently have the courage to stand up and publicly share their stories and “demand” help and support for dealing with this condition. 
There you go. Fat people have no courage. We are so weak, we can't even stand and pretend to assert the undermined connection with our intrinsic humanness.

Oh rilly? How did that happen pray tell? Following the advice of 'science' that's how. Never being able to accept true outcomes, that's how. The disease-mongering lying that's the 'obesity' cult is how.

'Obesity' has laid waste to even the most no-nonsense large and in charge fatty's self conceptualization, to some degree or another. Does anyone really think people can endure an enforced state of body dysmorphia, panic syndrome induced by insisting we permanently catastrophize to "motivate" ourselves, whilst existing in an often permanently excruciating state of discomfort and shrug it off?

I'd love to see Sharma try that. Actually, no I wouldn't, because I wouldn't wish it on anyone but the truly wicked and I mean that. 

I'll let him into a secret, he couldn't have come out of this any better than us, don't doubt it. He hasn't a clue, because like a lot of his cronies, he's out of touch with fat people's deepest thoughts and feelings.

As much because fat people are too-when it comes to the experience of being fat, as the on-going lack of objective observation.

The only reason for such absurd expectation is fat people's incredible grace. I've said it before, fat people should be studied for the amazing extent to which we have withstood such relentless and ruthless assaults on our character and person, over such a sustained period. Sometimes from a very young age.

Living the 'obese' persona turned me into someone I despised more than the most wicked people who've ever lived-for long stretches. This damaged me, and yet, somehow......resilience. The psychopathologies-cognitive distortions etc., caused by playing 'obese' are sometimes quite noticeable. Some are easily as bad as what is diagnosed as separate neuroses in those who aren't fat.

On some level I almost guffaw at this. We are walking around in plain sight with these, yet many aren't downed by them. And don't expect the 'obesity' crew to know anything. They've so pathologized people-including their odious pity-they can barely tell.

Honestly, they're like a monkey on your back.

Intriguingly, this suggests not that its better not to know [you have a neurosis], but that the burden imposed by portentously focusing on neuroses, can be the last straw for your mind. Rather like playing 'obese' disrupts metabolic function often in the ways fat people are caricatured.

'Obesity' in modern times, though perhaps not always, has got to be one of the most useless that ever passed for what? Scholarship (?) [Oh please, I'm on the floor]. It's supposed to exist to serve fat people. How odd a notion is that?

It's supposed to be driven, unbidden, to acquire knowledge of metabolic anatomy, function in order to uncover new pathways to improve health and well being of those who need it most. It's supposed to be fully engaged with fat people's bodies, how/if they function differently and how to make the most of that.

They'd engage with fat people too, get to know them. You get to know people best by looking after their needs.

Instead, this discipline [snigger] is filled with food fixated zealots, putative social engineers and those who wish to advance the interference of the medical profession in areas many do not want them to be in.

No other has ever trashed its own supposed vehicle for study.  Not people engaged in studying paedophiles, psychopaths, violent criminals. NONE.

Every single one of those fields have humanized their subjects by default due in some part to the outcome of academic rigour. If not some fellow feeling for, or some desire to do some good. Not 'obesity.' Remarkably its recent outpourings have managed to introduce a remorseless dehumanization of those it should want to help.

That muppet Yalom  says he finds it easier to connect with those convicted of heinous crimes more than fat people. He said that with more ease than most 'obesity' wallahs could show to fat people, even when they're sweating to pity fat people. Which is not at all apt.

It is truly monstrous to have a field filled with so much hatred for those its supposed to be caring for. I honestly cannot think of any other where so many involved openly want fat people to suffer, or even to die.

I mean we hear about the fattest all the time in the media and television. Where are the Dr Sharma's, the Karen Hitchcock's, the Yoni Fredhoff's to give the benefit of their objective expertise? Name one field where that would not be the case? These might as well be in hiding.

That is why areas of knowledge about health progress. Experts in any other field would lose their shit if any hack misrepresented their area of expertise in the way the media routinely does to fat people. Private words would be had with the programme makers, broadcasters, newspapers etc., and it wouldn't be nice.

So after decades of silencing you and getting others to enforce this. You're expected to emerge pristine and presumably ready to give suitably simplistic sob story of "living with this disease." As usual, it's somehow always down to the fat public to do the professional's jobs for them.

Because suddenly behaving like a true academic discipline is so far out of sight, they can't imagine it. 

They'll have another conference though.....

Tuesday, 5 May 2015

Leading Cause of Chronic Child and Adult Health Problems? ACE's

For years now there's been talk of how "poor diet" is a leading cause of (preventable) death more recently promoted to the top spot.

I don't feel entirely at home with this kind of competition. Something makes me skeptical about the construction of leading cause of deaths when it comes to the kind of chronic conditions most associated with wear and tear.

We will all die of something at some point. Not wishing to be ageist but how old does a person have to be before their passing is deemed, not preventable?

Anyway a more pressing reason to reject this assertion and its usual shallow agenda. The health effects of ACE's aka Adverse Childhood Experiences are usually absent from the overall picture. From parental, societal and peer sources. Whether abuse, sexual and other exploitation, bullying, assault, neglect and verbal aggression. All are being finally realized more recently as sources of more chronic ill-health.

Before the "toughen up"/get over it crew get going, this is what prioritizing health and personal responsibility really means. You cannot have any of that truly, without a comprehensive index of each and every, at least major, influence on each particular person.

If you find that an unnecessarily exacting thought then you are finally catching on to what your mindless rhetoric really refers to. The crusade has completely isolated fat people as if we have absolutely no contact with any other human being and transcend our era, time and place.

I've said forever that health can be affected by virtually anything that affects you, to the good or ill. The fixation on food and eating is an instinctive and sometimes quite conscious way to dodge this. Especially when it demands disciplined behaviour from those who like to feel free to impact on people and their health.

It also tends to quickly raise political questions undermining the deliberate intent to depoliticize people's existence.