Monday, 13 March 2017

A New Old Life for Gabourey

The mutilation class action suit waiting to happen rolls on latest to step on board is Gabourey Sidibe. All wrapped up in using; self love, body positivity and aiming at straight at Black women as a target market for abuse of the surgical process.

After a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes she decided, no doubt on "medical advice", to go for peace of mind to save potential harm of diabetes playing on her mind. Similar factors went into Angelina Jolie's surgery.

The difference is the extent to which Gabby's story is utterly contrived by those who've striven to deny even the most minimal means of making positive adjustments to metabolic function. Jolie was seeking to head off an increased threat of a real pathology-cancer, though there are arguments about that. Whereas Gabby is doing it to alter function the wrong way, as that's the only way available. 

Everything that happened to Gabby was decided by ideology; being put on her first weight loss diet at the age of 6 by her parents, to the subsequent years of diet, regain, desperately trying to lose gains, until the (partial) nervous collapse of weight loss diet burnout.

With an often continual upward climb having to desperately embark on more wasted years often driving their weight ever upward, into the arms of mutilators.

The article says she'd been trying for 10 years to diet her weight down, as she's 33 that seems to mean she had a few years rest between burnout and that particular tranche of adult dieting career. That's how sane people can happily pay to have their healthy function butchered and feel better for it.

You can feel better for just about anything if what came before is made intolerable enough for you. Though how those falling for this hype will feel when they realise exactly what has been done to them is anyone's guess. My feeling has been the last to comprehend are likely to be the angriest, given what it takes [often unconsciously] to stay on board.

Gabby herself said this is a last resort, that it is any resort for is the decision of those who claim to care so much about health. 

From gun to tape this cult has complete control over you and your life-as a fat person- even to the way you perceive the reality of that. No-one should have this much control, it is as corrupting as it is evidence of corruption.

Getting you to act against your own interests as your default position is why it is a cult in all but name.

Unlike fat activists I say the ace held is not fat phobia, it's blocking the science.

Obfuscation, half-truths, misrepresentation, tendentious interpretation above all, a hegemony of collusion..... It perhaps this along with the extent of mercilessness that may be what ensures they do not get away with this-forever. Using alteration of hunger/appetite as a selling point is all very well, but that helps to point out that cal res is a dead duck,
“My surgeon said they’d cut my stomach in half. This would limit my hunger and capacity to eat. 
My surgeon said indeed! Same old ob wallahs speaking through fat people with their script. Prioritisation of cal res decided the removal of stomachs, this as a side effect reduced the body's ability to generate hunger and changed the way appetite functions. That wouldn't happen if hunger was all in the brain/mind-which is the basis of cal res-which was the excuse for cutting the stomach out in the first place.

They should have started from the point they're selling this mutilation on! The whole cal res experiment-including dieting- has been a waste of time. They would have started from here if they'd had any real interest in actual physiology or an ounce of compassion for real people.

Metabolic function is designed to be altered. It has to all the time just for your body to be able to maintain itself. Its just those in this business prefer to do that what they feel like. And as long as there is no alternative, they'll be able to continue to do just what they can get away with.
Here's the DM's health correspondent,
...they work by restricting amount of food the stomach can hold. With less space to hold food, the patient will consequently consume fewer calories. It involves removing 80 percent of the stomach.
Umm, not half,
"More importantly, the operation stablizes a number of gut hormones which are off-balance in obese people driving them to crave food when they don't need it. It also controls blood sugar levels....
If it's more important cutting out the stomach would be superfluous. As for hormones being "off balance" and the rest of that tendentious nonsense is the case, why is cutting out virtually the whole of a healthy functioning stomach required to 'normalise'? Don't slim people [Gabby's unlikely to become that] have whole functioning stomachs?

And why do many people regain lost weight as their bodies heal and regain function. 

So we can all agree, if you insist on reducing intake that dictates that you  reduce/alter hunger function.

We can also it seems agree cutting a stomach out to achieve this has been an irrelevant detour....

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

It's called H-U-N-G-E-R

"Sell high calorie foods in plain packaging to beat obesity, says brain prize winner", a brain prize winner, the Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Prize to be precise, must know exactly what they're talking about.

We are to believe anyone who would even think of gainsaying anything Wolfram Schultz, to put a name to him, uttered on such matters would be some way out of their depth. An "anti-science" sort not worth listening to, isn't that so?  We are all cowered to be sure, 'til we get to the lols.

First, a bit of context,
“We should not advertise, propagate or encourage the unnecessary ingestion of calories,” [really?]
Then he utters the immortal line;
“There should be some way of regulating the desire to get more calories. 
What a fantastic idea, there should be. Wait a minute, there is. I've found it,

H-U-N-G-E-R!

Hand me mucho dinero. Give me a frackin' prize.

I almost don't want to go on as that sums up the mess that is the ob cult and its weight is cals in minus cals used underpinnings. That mes amis is toute-les-choses [I'm feeling all Hercule P]. You need little more to grasp just how much this type of ideology has the minds of its subjects utterly pinioned to the point where reason is wasted on them.

They don't want to deal with hunger, their compulsion to impose it, starvation and anorexia on others is only exceeded by their desire to deny this. Trying to convince everyone hunger doesn't really exist. You don't eat because you are hungry, you're not hungry, you're emotional. 

This man is a scientist but that gives no immunity from this neurosis. He shared a prize for his research into reward systems-not a coinage I've ever had a whole lot of time for, could be worse though. Yet he doesn't actually get that hunger exists to regulate intake.

If he or anyone else feels there's any problem with hunger, then that should be the target of adjustment, not food. I am literally thankful every day that I'm no longer troubled by relentless; hyper functioning, overactive, hypersensitive and implacable hunger I was in the past. Seeking to control what people eat to in this way seeks to replace the adjustment of hunger. They believe they can be your hunger better than your actual function. The one designed for the purpose.

Which doesn't go away, all that happens is the setting up of a clash with these artificial outside bounds. 

Are other people really designed to be your hunger?

Yes, it's true that food manufacturers seek to influence your eating, even to the extent of controlling it, in the sense of wanting you to chose their products over others-whether that works for you or not. However, these people do not arm folk against that, they merely become a counter extreme that turns you into a battleground for their skirmishes with each other.

The problem with the crusade and ci/co is it begins and ends it seems with eating, which is too late in the process. It comes after hunger. Eating is the response to that, not some sinister pathology or original sin.

De-contextualising eating in this way simply becomes a source of further disorder and dietary mayhem. Which intriguingly relates to an area of interest for Schultz, understanding how memories are formed, according to this geeze and others, this could help with learning how to unravel [undesired] memories. Like not being able to remember hunger exists or what its for.

All for the desire to control what other people eat.

Thursday, 2 March 2017

Bob Attack

I see from Ragen that Bob Harper has had a heart attack *pause*. That's right, the main trainer on the Biggest Loser (US) has succumbed to heart trouble.

After spending years barking at fat people like a rabid dog, ordering them to starve and torture themselves with exercising till they/cry/ vomit/breakdown emotionally has up and fallen down into a dead faint needing medical intervention to save his life.

No motivation-inspiration for him, proper techniques based on biological reality that actually do what they are supposed to do. Imagine that. 

 Bob Trying to give some victims an "obesity-related" Bob Attack

Bob's situation also reinforces my oft made point that TBL shows just how healthy, healthy people are [regardless of their size]. That shitshow has never managed to give any of them a Bob Attack despite obviously trying. Summing up the extent of fakery involved in a crusade desperate for people to be unhealthy whether they are or not. Hereby being the first crusade to mandate psychosomatic illness in modern times, perhaps ever. 

Consider, how much of any of his 'work-outs' could Bob do right now? *Shudder* it beggars thought. And that my friends is what MORBIDITY actually is. Not a way to repurpose a personal yuck factor, an insult or an emotional terror tactic.

Bob representing typical fitness industry ignorance

No wonder he was driven to do so much keep fit! The poor sucker was trying to outrun his fate. Something he has in common with his victims who seek to outrun their assigned fate, it rarely works for either.

Perhaps that's why so many of these fitness types can summon up so much inexplicable "anger". It's their FEAR screaming. 

There's also displacement. Using fat people as vehicles for diet and exercise tropes doubles up as an exhortation of self-to keep going with your 'fitness' and keep these feelings at bay/keep hold of your life.

Kind of like the slimming business, where people go to keep up the restriction their bodies have succumbed to, seeking prolongation of the effect through making careers as nutritionists, personal trainers and the like.

How sneakily our inner needs manifest themselves!

I can't say if its statistically significant, but it does seem that if you throw a population at diet and exercise that an uncanny amount who are able to stick with it do seem to need some means of seeing off their fate.

It begs the question of just how much the body knows what is in store. Whether there was some 'injury' or malfunction all along waiting to implode.This is then read through the conscious insistence that all metabolic alteration must take the restriction exercise course.

If there was proper means of making adjustment, that worked with rather than against the body, that could have spared poor Bob. 

People like this would probably be better off with a more gentle way of handling their inheritance, keeping their body relaxed and their mind calm.

This is of course why so many people cannot sustain these quack fitness regimes [with the emphasis on regime]. Their bodies know what their more pliant (conscious) minds do not, that this sort of self-abuse could bring matters to a conclusion before they would like. 

According to reports, Bob did not bob, he dropped like a stone and had to be virtually snatched from the coffin by a friendly paramedic. He is at 51, literally, a coffin-dodger.

He like fat children and adults, has had the rug well and truly pulled from under him. His confidence is shaken and he'll feel vulnerable and scared. Every twinge will now bring doubt, is this the end? Welcome to our world Bob. To what it feels like to be terrorised by health.

My advice? Get over that. Overlook it and focus on the positive, take care of yourself, forgive your poor body which can only do its best.  Appreciate it and be kind to it and yourself as a person. That's what we're trying to do and what everyone like yourself is trying to put us off doing.

Imagine that.


Oh we have every idea. It'll be interesting to see whether and to what extent he shows any contrition for his past actions. However that pans out, I'll be expecting a work-out and special diet for invalids, special work-outs for recovering from actual rather than pretend illness and so forth.

Or perhaps he'll go away and hide like "obesity shut-ins" have to do due to the triumphant reign of the ideology he represents/ represented, I kind of doubt that, don't you?

Other lessons are available of course; the difference between health and fitness, Bob was fit, not necessarily healthy (not right now any how). Only slim people are allowed to acknowledge the possibility of genetic inheritance, that when health becomes 'behavioural' everybody has to explain themselves.

There are millions of Bobs and Robertas, heart attacks affect as many who have none of the personal markers associated with them as do, and so on and on....

Trying to tell anyone into fitness this sort of thing though is like trying to tell a romantic that there won't necessarily be a fair maiden/man riding to their rescue. Well remember next time they're hating on you, that they could well be fighting for their own life.

Dog eat dog.

Wednesday, 1 March 2017

Surprise, Surprise!!!

We all learn exactly the same frame for understanding weight based on weight=calories in, minus calories expended. The first thing most capable of objective observation learn is that there's something missing from that equation.

Looking at this exchange is indicative of the limitations of a starting point that doesn't lend itself to any other than its own ideology;
you said it...in a word. Thermodynamics. It doesnt matter how few calories you eat if your body cant burn them. Even with exercise, if your thyroid and adrenal system isnt functioning properly, you wont lose weight. It's a FACT.
It's in response to a deleted comment, the response to it is one I've tidied up for your reading pleasure;
Your body burns calories merely by the exchange of oxygen through the processing of breathing, [precious flower]. The ONLY time a body isn't burning calories is when you're dead, [sweetness]. 
The most important point to make is these pieces of information do not contradict each other. I'm not sure about the specifics of how the adrenal system and thyroid function interact with the maintenance-or otherwise-of adipose tissue, so I can't really confirm or deny the comment on its face. What I can say though is that the function of the glands is key to understanding fat metabolism, of that there is little doubt.

I agree with the second comment which simply draws attention to what is missing from the much taught weight hypothesis. He goes on;
Do you realize that WHEN YOU SLEEP you, literally, burn calories. Normally, a person burns about 0.42 calories for every pound in one hour of sleep. For instance, a 150 lb. person burns about 63 calories in one hour. 
The first commenter's conclusion comes from her basis of understanding in the only one taught. She's assuming-as we all do to some extent- that fatness is all about energy or intake not being (fully) used up.

Yet as the second commenter says, the body is always using energy, so how can people store much of it beyond a certain point? His issue is the erasure of hunger. In supporting this hypothesis, it has to go from a response, to random conscious decision. From something that fits into the context of metabolic function, to something somehow outside and imposed upon it.

His criticism of her is criticism of the basis of his own rationale, rather like those who criticise HAES, just end up criticising the notion that a healthy diet/lifestyle increases, maintains or creates health.

His stance is rage and hate, but he has no real quarrel with what she's saying without having a quarrel with himself. Any lack of science literacy comes from those who provide what purports to be 'science' the same he's basing his comments on.

His quarrelsome stance uses her (fat) body as if it is making an argument against his. As with all fat haters and 'obesity' promoters, their real argument is with the true nature of biology. They just sort of anthropomorphise that into an argument with any random fat person.

Fat bodies stand in testiment to their falsity. If they can get rid of them, their delusion can triumph. If they cannot get get rid of fatness, they can get rid of fat people, from the public sphere.

This causes them to twist and turn. When the AMA made their loco-lying position, haters expected us to welcome it as some kind of status symbol. They raged against [giving us] excuses. Such velocity had their fury, that it took a while for them to catch on that few self respecting fatz had any interest in such lying nonsense.

When their brains finally adjusted, they immediately switched tack and said we were in denial. That's if they didn't just treat us as if we were the AMA.

Ditto when the phony addiction babble came up, they sneered that we felt we were better than (drug) addicts.

We are told we look for excuses, when we refuse what could be deemed excuses, we are criticised for that by the same people. They must know their fakery is becoming more and more obvious, they're just to far gone, leave them to it. 

The second commenter, like others presents this kind of thing as evidence of fat people's dishonesty-your fat body is using up so much energy, you must be taking in so much more. This is where 'obesity' mongers have always leveraged the shaming of fat people to suppress our potential input, to avoid any real progress. 

It ends up with fat people being unable to discover/reveal surprising or unexpected information about human function, but that is exactly what we have done. This refusal to allow us to offer out discoveries to others, not only reduces progress for all, it turns the surprise of being human into a symbol of slim people's status.

I say this to the white coats and freelance internet trolls: We won't be silenced anymore.

Tuesday, 28 February 2017

No Extension

I had one of my periodic inclinations to write a post about the politics of 'obesity' recently. What derailed the post intended was coming up hard against another clear explanation of what the 'obesity' construct is really means in this preposterous effort by a person paid to teach youth *shudder*.

Incidentally, it throws a tipping point in society's upward curve in body mass the influence of American Negritude on Caucasoidal integrity....file that under btchplz. Nothing to do with the science-blocking refusal to do real research rather than a panto version of it then....

From the nag's mouth;
It was obvious that the young women in my classes were concerned about being accepted for who they are -- excess weight and all.
They saw those extra pounds as an important extension of them as human beings, not as a problem to be solved.
Emphasis mine.

"Saw those extra pounds" as if its some kind of outré phenomena to recognise your whole body as wholly your own. How is it possible to be this idiotic, without shame?

"An important extension of them as human beings," That is exactly where what the term 'obesity' defines starts from.

Here, human being =slim.

It is solipsistic in the extreme expressing as it does the mind of someone else coming up against the difference that is you, unable to expand their frame of reference to accomodate such minimal divergence from themselves.

Seeking instead to subordinate it to their own idea of themselves.

A balloon could theoretically have more or less air in it. That doesn't compute, instead a smaller balloon is contained, in a larger balloon. As if the very idea of a bigger person engulfs the (smaller) observer. Like really? You want people to see this struggle?

Have you so little sense of ambition? Lols.

This smaller balloon in a bigger one is the basis of the 'obesity' construct ideation, its notions of 'obesity' causing this or that issue and "obesity-related".

The bigger balloon you are supposed to be encased in is attacking the smaller balloon within, the real you, the slim person screaming to get out of a fat body

This is why I put 'obesity/obese' in quotes, to remind people always that has nothing to do with the way any sane person sees themselves or can see themselves-from the inside out.  Why would I see myself as a locked within a bigger structure when its all me?

'Obesity' is embarrassing for these reasons, not because, wobbly bottoms. Any humour in that pales into insignificance when one asks oneself, "How did wanting to be slim come to this madness?"

Feeling like you've allowed this to be foisted onto you is part of fat people's so called "low esteem." Fat people don't have low self esteem, they have this shit to deal with and they are responding appropriately to that.

Having too look through the 'obesity' cult lens instead of your own. Having to keep going round in the same quack circles, rather than try to understand the genuine complexity and beauty of the way the body regulates its own cells-because people aren't done with pretending this is "science". That's fat shaming. Knowing your place and being kept in it.

Anyone who's been seriously troubled by advance stages of bullying know exactly how it feels to have to act as if bullies lies are real. When everyone turns against you and your friends can't stand by you because they'll be swept away by hate....

Don't make the error of assuming this has anything to do with whether you wish to be slimmer or not. You are not required to compartmentalise your body into mythical parts. Your body is whole no matter whether you want its physical dimensions to be lesser or the same (or greater).

It's as if the impact of the 'excess weight' coinage causes this mind to split another person's body from itself. That's a real dumb-dumb right there. And you're stuck in that.

Monday, 27 February 2017

A More Apt Response

Woman "...chops off her own finger with bolt cutters." I beg to differ DM. She cut off the top two joints of her pinkie. Still the fuss about her act of self-mutilation is more than I've seen for the whole of the current drive to remove healthy functioning stomachs merely to facilitate starvation over more extended periods. 

DM calls Ms Pinkie Cutter's act "bizarre". They quote others as saying its 'crazy', 'disgusting, 'stupid'. In the comments she's described as an attention-seeking, substance user, a candidate for sectioning, a disappointment to her mother(aw), [the ubiquitous] narcissist, victim of a childhood head trauma with 'questionable' parents, and a 'sick puppy.

Ms Torz Reynolds-her actual name-indicated that she went with an aesthetic feeling and pronounced herself pleased with the result.

"Healing so well and totally love it!"

Sounds familiar, except the first part would be more a cause for sorrow. Healing tends to signal tapering off of precious weight loss.

Even Ms Pinkie Shears draws the line at seeing healing as a disappointment.

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

The Social Model of Dis-Abling

When I first heard about the social model of disability, I was agahst about emphatic nature of those asserting it. The social model of disability is that disabled people are disabled only by society's lack of acknowledgement of their needs, rather than their actual impairments*.

The medical model of disability views disability purely in diagnostic terms, seeing that as the primary cause of the person's difficulties. The social model clearly had a profoundly liberating effect on many disabled people, freeing them from having a burden unforeseen by people like me. The medical model, probably unwittingly dumped the burden of society's neglect of their needs on individual people.

It took the social model for me to realise this.

Subsequently activists and others have found its limitations for themsevles, this doesn't invalidate the positive.

When I came to the fatsphere especially, I said that it was not fat acceptance that was radical or extreme, it was the 'obesity' cult that was outré. What everyone fears about extremists, that they'll set the defining standard, is exactly what 'obesity' cultists and food faddists have managed to do.

The 'obesity' industry's increasing promotion of gastrectomy has presented another surprise.

Gastrectomy disables healthy function to bring about its effects, not as collateral damage for something theraputic.

By this it establishes a notion of disability as healthier state than able-bodied.

As this conclusion is the product of social disapproval, it validates a premise in the social model of disability. That real disability isn't your function, it's in other people's attitude to it.  

* Impairment is a term used by Karen Hitchcock to refer to weight "....no drug can fix the functional impairment of being obese". Though she vociferously refutes the favoured lie that 'obesity' is disease.