On the individual psychology of food: Against calorie management

By Denis G. Rancourt

Modern society is structured as a highly stratified dominance hierarchy. The present superior global human hierarchy is maintained -- in its depth and breadth -- by advanced transportation, communication, information, and military technologies, and is unprecedented in the hundred million year history of mammalian life on the planet. Consequently, the degree of top-down control of the individual, in his/her every thought and attitude, is also unprecedented, whether conscious or not.

The latter control is essential for maintaining the hierarchy against the destabilizing natural impulses for individual freedom and for individual influence in local community. Independence must be actively suppressed and individual health, which is premised on independence, is always sacrificed for the benefit of maintaining and increasing hierarchical control [1].

Consequently, individual health is a problem for hierarchy and is only allowed in (self) indoctrinated individuals, to the degree that the indoctrination is seamless.The main determinant factor of individual health is the individual's perceived position or status within the dominance hierarchy, which is often largely determined by the individual's actual position within the dominance hierarchy [2]. This perceived position is, in turn, fundamentally a question of the individual's self-image of utility, place, and power.

Since the individual can only have utility, place, and power as prescribed by the dominance hierarchy, and since most individuals occupy lower strata of the hierarchy, then necessarily most individuals are unhealthy, have sub-ideal health levels.

Unhealthy overweightness and obesity are caused by over eating. The science of metabolic energy budgets is incontrovertible on the latter point! Over eating is caused by low self-image and the associated psychological pain.

Here, I suggest two solutions: A radical solution anchored in personal politics, and a practical solution that is ridiculously easy to implement. The two solutions can be combined, or actuated independently.

The personal political solution is to eye the enemy that actually has its hand on your throat and to fight the bastards. A true fight avoiding windmills will make you both active and healthy. Take power to get power. The food thing will work itself out if your primordial target becomes the fight for your influence and dignity, against the real enemy. This solution is extremely difficult to implement because the system has done everything to incapacitate you regarding any type of self-defense, and has even made you blind regarding the actual physical appearance of the enemy.

The practical solution, which can be implemented immediately, is to make one brisk continuous 10-minute walk every day. This can be increased to 20 minutes per day if you feel so inclined.

Peer reviewed medical research shows that such a 10-minute walk per day may be the single most healthy thing one could ever do, and that this health therapy far outweighs virtually all other medical interventions known to modern science... [3]

Here, keep in mind that "brisk walk" is specific to you. Don't push too hard but don't sleep walk either, in such a way that it doesn't even get the juices flowing. Be confident that your body will repair itself if the joints hurt at first, and so on. This won't kill you.

The idea here is not that the calorie burning from the walking itself is of any use. It is not and that is not the point. The idea is twofold, in my opinion.

First, a million years of human evolution would never have predicted that humanity could come to a point where one actually has to think about walking at least 10 minutes a day. In that sense, it is fundamentally bad for one's metabolism to not have at least this degree of animal activity. And science has now provided the answer about the quantitative minimal degree that is required to avoid a slow meltdown into immobility, depression, and early death [3].

Secondly, and as importantly, walking is a physical expression of independence and power. You and your body go where you want to go, say hi to those you want to greet, go at the pace you want to have, and choose everything about the walking. In this sense, walking gives one a psycho-physiological experience of independence and power, one that directly nurtures self-esteem.

This is the missing link in calorie intake theory as a paradigm for weight loss: Physical activity, if chosen and self-directed, directly impacts self-esteem which, in turn, mediates compulsive over eating. As a result, the calorie balance sheet is affected far beyond the energy consumption value of the physical activity itself.

Why is the latter point such a secret? Why all the emphasis on calorie counting, which acts to mask this truth about the real benefits of physical activity? How is it that the most important advice is never clearly given as being the main point? One answer is that the professional behaviours of medical doctors and nutritionists are necessarily aligned with maintenance of the dominance hierarchy. Independence threatens hierarchy.  

Endnotes

[1] 2011-12-20::: A Theory of Chronic Pain, by Denis G. Rancourt
[2] 2011-11-21::: Is establishment medicine an injurious scam?, by Denis G. Rancourt
[3] 2011-12-02::: "23 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health?", video by Dr. Mike Evans, University of Toronto.

Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science (including physics and environmental science) which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals and several social commentary essays. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009. His dismissal case is scheduled to continue court hearings into 2013.

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball on the politics and professional ethics of global warming agitation

On July 12, 2012, CHUO 89.1 FM (Ottawa) The Train's Denis Rancourt interviewed Professor Dr. Tim Ball, climatologist, about climate science and the politics of global warming. Fascinating history of the climatology profession... Dr. Ball is being sued for defamation in regard to his criticisms of other climate professionals. The lawsuits are on-going and Dr. Ball is committed to getting to the truth and justice.

This is a remarkable interview where you can hear what it is like to respect the memory of decades of acquired scientific knowledge, as opposed to re-defining reality for careerist goals.

 LINK TO RADIO INTERVIEW

Radio Talk::: Denis Rancourt on science and science popular education propaganda

This one-hour radio show is receiving positive feedback from around the world, mostly Russia this month:

CHUO 89.1 FM Ottawa -- Dr. Denis Rancourt goes it alone critiquing science and science popular education propaganda
.

Judge Accused of Conflict of Interest Loses Decorum and Withdraws from Case

July 24, 2012

by Student's-Eye View

Why donate to my Legal Fund?

I was fired from my tenured full professorship at the University of Ottawa, Canada, because I stood for my principles in every facet of my professional life, and because I was an outspoken critic of the university administration and its executives. I stood for rational education based on proven research rather than obedience training, and I stood for ethical management rather than careerism. I was fired under the false pretext of fraudulent grading in a one-semester advanced physics course. I was handcuffed, arrested, and dragged off campus in front of my students for attending the weekly public discussion seminar that I had created and run for many years. Now the University of Ottawa is fighting in court to not allow me back on campus and is funding a $1 million private defamation lawsuit against me.

This is an appeal to donate to my legal fund (the Denis Rancourt Legal Fund) in order to provide a moderately fair trial in the private civil lawsuit that some observers have characterized as a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) against me.

I am committed to obtaining justice but justice is illusive when there is a large asymmetry of means between the opposing parties. At this point I will have exhausted all my financial savings within a month or so.

I was wrongly fired in 2009 from my tenured full professorship in physics at the University of Ottawa by a president, Allan Rock, who had a personal mission to get me.  He instructed his executives and hired lawyers to fire me, and this was executed without due process.

Under false pretence, in November 2008, my students and I were locked out of our laboratory and offices without warning.

My research associate of 12 years was summarily fired (she sued and won a settlement).

The laboratory was dismantled before I was even informed of the mock procedure to fire me that was initiated in December 2008 when I was banned from campus, again without notice, under police escort. 

The false pretext used was that I had fraudulently assigned grades in one advanced physics course in the winter 2008 semester. The University’s main witness at a recent hearing admitted under oath that the university had no evidence for this for any student.

The real reason that Allan Rock wants to shut me down may be my “U of O Watch” blog and its persistent criticism of university management and executives, including: criticism of the university’s treatments of students, criticism of Rock’s on-going career dealings, criticisms of administrators and colleagues who, in my view, act against public and/or student interests, exposing executive malfeasance such as doctoring documents “to make a point”, and so on.

The true reasons for firing me may also include: my development of a new and highly popular “activism course”, my weekly “cinema politica” public event on campus, my weekly on-going campus radio show, inviting critical speakers into my classes, my liberating pedagogical methods focussed on learning rather than obedience, my continued invitations in university classrooms as an invited intervener, and so on.

Rock hoped that firing me would be the end of me:

“With any luck, firing him will get him off campus …”
       -- December 15, 2008 email, Allan Rock to staff

After firing me at an executive meeting that he chaired on March 31, 2009, Rock continued to express his views about me and to search for ways to “get the facts out”:

“Far from having had ‘an impeccable pedagogical career’, Rancourt has spent the last several years undermining pedagogy, denying students access to an education and engaging in a cynical mockery of the whole education process; and

Rancourt is trafficking in fictions to try to save his own skin while recklessly and irresponsibly creating tensions in Ottawa’s religious communities. (As to ‘fiction’, I refer to the example of his lying about me going to Israel last July.)

How best to get the facts out?

Allan”
      -- April 19, 2009 email, Allan Rock to Bruce Feldthusen (then VP, now dean of common law)

In what I believe to be the latest episode to “get Rancourt”, Allan Rock has, following a “recommendation” from Bruce Feldthusen, personally agreed to entirely finance – without a spending limit – a private $ 1 million defamation lawsuit against me, for a blogpost on my “U of O Watch” blog. The private litigant did not contact a lawyer until after the agreement for unlimited funding was made – according to sworn testimonies given in my recent court motion to dismiss the action (ref).

Irrespective of the legal merits of the defamation claim and irrespective of the legal merits of my defence, the plaintiff’s unlimited funding is such that, as an unsalaried self-represented defendant, I find myself pitted against two major law firms (Gowlings and BLG), thus creating a Charter breach to my fundamental rights (ref, at paragraphs 61 to 67).

The legal process is complex and expensive. I am working hard to learn the theory and practice of litigation.

Even if I do not pay legal fees to a lawyer representing me, there are court and proceeding costs, and, most importantly, each time I lose an interim procedural motion I must pay the legal costs of the opponents. On some motions, the University of Ottawa itself is a second opponent (using the BLG law firm).

There have been over ten such motions (or mini-trials) to date and I will soon (this month or next) have exhausted my life savings at this point. If I win a motion, the other side argues that I need not have costs because I am self-represented.

It is obvious to me now that a minimum degree of justice requires at least a minimum of funding.

At stake is freedom of expression on matters of public interest (here, namely, the possibility of systemic racism at the University of Ottawa). At stake is access to justice. At stake is fundamental fairness in the justice system itself in treating self-represented litigants. At stake is the need for SLAPP-informed funding rules in private civil litigation in Ontario.

Please contribute to my legal fund. All donations go to my legal costs to obtain a just treatment before the courts. All court documents are posted to the web (e.g., ref).

(LINK: Donate, Legal Fund -- donate web page)

Related articles:

This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like in Canada

Hearings into dismissal of Rancourt reveal much

TVO (TV Ontario) interview with Denis Rancourt:

Fired for inciting learning -- Video interview series

Joshua Blakeney interviews Denis Rancourt about the professor's conflict with the University of Ottawa.

On who killed Malcolm X

I just finished reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told by Alex Haley and the epilogue by Haley, and the endnote "On Malcolm X" (reproduced below) by Ossie Davis who had delivered this moving eulogy.

I am thoroughly shocked by the brutality of the military-style execution that ended Malcolm X. (And immensely moved by who Malcolm X was, and his absolute dedication to justice by exposing the paired crimes -- at the societal and individual levels -- of organized oppression and of accepting one's own oppression.)

I'm also stunned by Malcolm X's depth of understanding of societal phenomena as historically formed and sustained by individual psychology and the degree to which he constantly pursued this understanding. I am awed by his intellectual honesty and by his incessant quest for meaning in action and in influence. Nothing in Haley's or Davis' words come close to the truths that X was perceiving about the nature of societal and individual forces.

In my opinion, this was no simple honour killing by sectarian opponents, as Malcolm X himself came to understand. The murder's planning and precision and evasion by most of those involved strongly suggest the dominant presence of a powerful military organization, experienced in political assassinations. Similar assassinations include those of Kennedy and King.

The US industrial-military-complex thrives on war and continental exploitation. Malcolm X created international outreach to solidify ties with independent African and Asian governments and he was assassinated. Kennedy moderated attacks against Cuba and moderated war-machine diplomacy and he was assassinated. King moved to direct black civil power against the Vietnam war and he was assassinated.

Below one can witness in words the personal impact Malcolm X had on at least one intellectual (Ossie Davis).

Tirelessly insisting that oppressed people stand up for themselves, as did Mother Jones in a previous era -- who also focused her relentless agitation on the "paired crimes" (my term). There was that unique kind of depth in Malcolm X. In that sense, I see him as a black brother of the white sister Mother Jones.

Each of us who recast and do not wish to understand Malcolm X are contributing to his death. Each of us who instinctively feel the necessity to defend oneself and who by practice experience this struggle for dignity contribute to keeping him alive.

Ossie Davis, ON MALCOM X:

Mr. Davis wrote the following in response to a magazine editor's question: Why did you eulogize Malcolm X?

You are not the only person curious to know why I would eulogize a man like Malcolm X. Many who know and respect me have written letters. Of these letters I am proudest of those from a sixth-grade class of young white boys and girls who asked me to explain. I appreciate your giving me this chance to do so.

You may anticipate my defense somewhat by considering the following fact: no Negro has yet asked me that question. (My pastor in Grace Baptist Church where I teach Sunday School preached a sermon about Malcolm in which he called him a "giant in a sick world.") Every one of the many letters I got from my own people lauded Malcolm as a man, and commended me for having spoken at his funeral.

At the same time-and this is important-most of them took special pains to disagree with much or all of what Malcolm said and what he stood for. That is, with one singing exception, they all, every last,black, glory-hugging one of them, knew that Malcolm-whatever else he was or was not Malcolm was a man!

White folks do not need anybody to remind them that they are men. We do! This was his one incontrovertible benefit to his people.

Protocol and common sense require that Negroes stand back and let the white man speak up for us,defend us, and lead us from behind the scene in our fight. This is the essence of Negro politics. But Malcolm said to hell with that! Get up off your knees and fight your own battles. That's the way to win back your self-respect. That's the way to make the white man respect you. And if he won't let you live like a man, he certainly can't keep you from dying like one!

Malcolm, as you can see, was refreshing excitement; he scared hell out of the rest of us, bred as we are to caution, to hypocrisy in the presence of white folks, to the smile that never fades. Malcolm knew that every white man in America profits directly or indirectly from his position vis-a-vis Negroes,profits from racism even though he does not practice it or believe in it.

He also knew that every Negro who did not challenge on the spot every instance of racism, overt or covert, committed against him and his people, who chose instead to swallow his spit and go on smiling, was an Uncle Tom and a traitor, without balls or guts, or any other commonly accepted aspects of manhood!

Now, we knew all these things as well as Malcolm did, but we also knew what happened to people who stick their necks out and say them. And if all the lies we tell ourselves by way of extenuation were put into print, it would constitute one of the great chapters in the history of man's justifiable cowardice in the face of other men.

But Malcolm kept snatching our lies away. He kept shouting the painful truth we whites and blacks did not want to hear from all the housetops. And he wouldn't stop for love nor money.

You can imagine what a howling, shocking nuisance this man was to both Negroes and whites. Once Malcolm fastened on you, you could not escape. He was one of the most fascinating and charming men I have ever met, and never hesitated to take his attractiveness and beat you to death with it. Yet his irritation, though painful to us, was most salutary. He would make you angry as hell, but he would also make you proud. It was impossible to remain defensive and apologetic about being a Negro in his presence. He wouldn't let you. And you always left his presence with the sneaky suspicion that maybe, after all, you _were_ a man!

But in explaining Malcolm, let me take care not to explain him away. He had been a criminal, an addict, a pimp, and a prisoner; a racist, and a hater, he had really believed the white man was a devil.

But all this had changed. Two days before his death, in commenting to Gordon Parks about his past life he said: "That was a mad scene. The sickness and madness of those days! I'm glad to be free of them."And Malcolm was free. No one who knew him before and after his trip to Mecca could doubt that he had completely abandoned racism, separatism, and hatred. But he had not abandoned his shock-effect statements, his bristling agitation for immediate freedom in this country not only for blacks, but for everybody. And most of all, in the area of race relations, he still delighted in twisting the white man's tail, and in making Uncle Toms, compromisers and accommodationists - I deliberately include myself - thoroughly ashamed of the urbane and smiling hypocrisy we practice merely to exist in a world whose values we both envy and despise.

But even had Malcolm not changed, he would still have been a relevant figure on the American scene, standing in relation as he does, to the "responsible" civil rights leaders, just about where John Brown stood in relation to the "responsible abolitionists in the fight against slavery. Almost all disagreed with Brown's mad and fanatical tactics which led him foolishly to attack a Federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry,to lose two sons there, and later to be hanged for treason.

Yet today the world, and especially the Negro people, proclaim Brown not a traitor, but a hero and a martyr in a noble cause So in future, I will not be surprised if men come to see that Malcolm X was,within his own limitations, and in his own inimitable style, also a martyr in that cause.

But there is much controversy still about this most controversial American, and I am content to wait for history to make the final decision.

But in personal judgment, there is no appeal from instinct. I knew the man personally, and however much I disagreed with him, I never doubted that Malcolm X, even when he was wrong, was always that rarest thing in the world among us Negroes: a true man. And if to protect my relations with the many good white folk who make it possible for me to earn a fairly good living in the entertainment industry, I was too chicken, too cautious, to admit that fact when he was alive, I thought at least that now when all the white folks are safe from him at last, I could be honest with myself enough to lift my hat for one final salute to that brave, black, ironic gallantry, which was his style and hallmark, that shocking _zing_ of fire-and-be-damned-to-you, so absolutely absent in every other Negro man I know,which brought him, too soon, to his death.