THE MANIFESTO OF PURE FEEDERISM

This is not another fetish blog. It is a manifesto – an ideological foundation. Feederism is not about consuming pictures, but about taking responsibility: for desire, for mass, for consequence. This site defines what is real – and draws the line against what is not. Anyone reading here understands: this is not fantasy, it is reality.

This site has three parts:

• The Manifesto – the principles, clearly defined.
• Blog Articles – elaborations, critique, practice.
• Search for Feeder – an invitation to the few who act instead of talk.
  This is not about content, but about structure. Not about play, but about consequence.

---

THE MANIFESTO OF PURE FEEDERISM

Read the complete manifesto

Proposition and redefinition

If feederism is defined so broadly that it encompasses any relationship between food, weight, and attraction, it ceases to be a distinguishable category. This text argues that without a clear definition, feederism faces the risk of mathematical annulment of the concept—the same logical error that occurs when a term expands so much that it no longer differentiates anything in particular.

For a term to be useful, it must refer to something specific. If one claims that everything is feederism, then feederism is no longer an identifiable phenomenon. This is the same logical problem as claiming that everything is art. If any object or action can be considered art, then the word loses its utility.

A concept without definition cannot be analyzed or defended. And since we are a social group, we must defend ourselves. An undefined concept cannot be correctly communicated, as each person will interpret it differently. Without limits, feederism disintegrates into a set of disconnected ideas, making it impossible to understand or validate.

Knowledge depends on distinction. We think through contrasts: light and darkness, order and chaos, health and disease. Without conceptual boundaries, there is no subject of study—only noise. Defining feederism is not about exclusion; it is about preservation. It is the only way for the term to maintain coherence and sustain a rational discourse.

A clear definition provides not only precision but also protection. If feederism’s own participants do not articulate it clearly, the concept will be shaped by external interpretations that may distort, trivialize, or condemn it. Without an internal structure, there is nothing to defend. Defining feederism is not a whim—it is a logical necessity. Without proper delimitation, it becomes such a vague idea that it loses its very reason for being.

For a concept to exist, it must be distinguished from what it is not. If everything is feederism, then feederism is nothing.

The pure feederism

If feederism is to be understood, it must be precisely defined. It is proposed that its essence lies in being an interpersonal adipophilic romantic relationship. Each of these terms is indispensable and eliminating them would dilute the meaning to the point of making it unrecognizable. This argument will explore why feederism cannot be an occasional or merely situational practice and why its nature demands the presence of love, intersubjectivity, and adipophilia as essential foundations.

To argue my proposal, it must be pointed out that any practice that aspires to be more than a mere act must be rooted in a relational structure. Feederism cannot be reduced to the mechanical act of feeding someone with erotic connotations. If that were the case, any fetishistic feeding session, even between strangers, could be called feederism. But this is not feederism in its essence; rather, it is a mere enactment, a performance lacking ontological depth. Therefore, pure feederism is not defined by the act of feeding but by the bond between those who practice it. It is not an isolated event but a continuous structure, sustained over time and in the connection between its participants. Just as love is not reduced to the sexual act, feederism cannot be reduced to a single feeding session or weight gain without further significance.

For feederism to exist, love must exist. And this is not an arbitrary restriction but an ontological necessity. Without love, the relationship lacks the depth and commitment necessary for feederism to be a meaningful experience rather than a mere fleeting indulgence. Love in this context is not limited to ephemeral emotion or momentary attraction but refers to a lasting bond in which mutual aesthetic,

Erotic and existential aspects intertwine with the desire for mutual growth. Only love allows feederism to be more than a mechanical transaction of pleasure and become a true construction of shared identity.

Denying the necessity of love in feederism reduces it to a mere role-playing game, stripping it of its deeper nature. A feederism relationship without love is a simulation, an empty echo of its true meaning. Feederism cannot be an individual phenomenon. It is not a private fantasy nor an isolated preference. It is an encounter between subjectivities, a process in which the desires, wills, and perceptions of the feeder and the feedee (or those involved in a mutual relationship) intertwine inseparably.

Finally, the term adipophilic is essential because it defines the aesthetics and desire around which the relationship revolves. Love alone is not enough, nor is the mere existence of an interpersonal relationship. Feederism necessarily implies a positive aesthetic attraction toward fatness and its process. Without adipophilia, feederism would be indistinguishable from any other romantic relationship. It would be nothing more than a regular couple in which one partner eats more than usual. For feederism to be a phenomenon with its own identity, it must involve appreciation and desire specifically directed toward fatness and its development. Here, adipophilia is not just an aesthetic obsession with weight itself; it is the focus on the increase of weight in another individual or the act of being fattened by an external agent within an adipophilic and emotional relationship in which fatness is valued and celebrated. It is not an externally imposed condition but a shared element that defines the bond between those involved.

Thus, it is finally understood that feederism is neither an occasional game, a situational practice, nor a mere fetish devoid of structure. It is an interpersonal adipophilic romantic relationship, a construct that cannot exist without love, interpersonality, and adipophilia as its essential foundations. Any attempt to define feederism without these elements would result in a distortion that strips it of its true nature. Only by understanding its ontological structure can it be defended and preserved as a legitimate and coherent phenomenon.

Basic Dictionary

Adipophilia: A philia that consists of an uncontrollable attraction to fatness and fattening per se.

Fatness: Subdermal fat stored in the hypodermis, phenotypic.

Feederism: An interpersonal adipophilic relationship in which the fattening of one or both parties takes place, though in the latter case, the eventual need for a third party will force them to revert to the first option of assigning roles sooner or later.

ATP: A molecule, the universal biological unit of life.

Triglycerides: Fats and sugars in the bloodstream, non-phenotypic.

---

Fundamental Terms

The feeder

A feeder is not simply someone who feeds another person or is attracted to weight, although it must be clarified that these characteristics are its most fundamental basis, as without them, even if they fulfill the following criteria, they could never be a feeder. Understanding these foundations, their role is deeper: they are the one who, being adipophilic or submissive to their partner’s desire to gain weight, becomes the driving force behind the weight gain process, assuming full responsibility for every new limitation that this weight creates. Defining this role precisely is essential to differentiate a true feeder from those who participate in feederism superficially or irresponsibly.

A feeder can emerge from two essential positions:

1. From adipophilia: where their desire is actively to see their partner gain weight and thrive in their new form. In this case, the feeder is the one who directs, motivates, and structures their partner’s growth with an aesthetic, erotic, and existential purpose.
2. From submission: where the feeder is not necessarily adipophilic themselves but finds satisfaction in fulfilling their partner’s desire to gain weight without restrictions. In this case, their role is that of a facilitator, a servant who provides unconditional support to the feedee.

Both paths lead to the same responsibility: the feeder is not a passive spectator of the process but a central piece in the feedee’s development. It is not enough to simply feed or encourage; the feeder is responsible for every transformation their partner undergoes. This means understanding that weight gain brings new limitations—from reduced mobility to complete dependency—and that each of these must be embraced with total commitment.

Being a feeder is not just about wanting to see someone gain weight. It is about being willing to sustain, care for, and make that gain possible in all its dimensions, accepting that every pound gained can radically alter the dynamics of the relationship and the life of the feedee.

The feeder is not just someone who feeds or encourages; they are someone who fully commits to the process, delights in their partner’s fatness, and takes responsibility for it. Whether from adipophilia or from submission to their partner’s desire, their role is to ensure that weight gain not only happens but is sustainable, regardless of the limitations that arise along the way. Only through this complete commitment can they proudly carry the title of feeder.

However, the pure feederism is neither a unilateral act nor a mere indulgence. It is a relationship based on the mutual enjoyment of gaining weight, where both participants engage with desire and enthusiasm. Absolute submission to the feedee’s desire, without an intrinsic adipophilia that drives the feeder, disrupts this balance and turns it into an unequal dynamic.

For feederism to be pure, the feeder must not only accept weight gain but actively enjoy it. If only the feedee (or the feeder) experiences pleasure in the process, the relationship loses its essence of reciprocity and becomes mere servitude. It is not enjoyable if only one party finds satisfaction in the transformation. Therefore, it must now be understood that while one can take on the role of feeder from a submissive standpoint, this approach is not compatible with true feederism, which is here defined as pure feederism.

The feeder must be more than just a facilitator; they must live the process with the same fervor as the feedee. Passive submission reduces feederism to the mere execution of another’s desires, stripping it of its true identity as a relationship of shared growth.

The Feedee

The feedee is not simply someone who gains weight within a relationship (although, once again, these are their most fundamental characteristics), but someone who does so with desire, pride, and determination, regardless of their personality, driven by adipophilia, which leads them to experience weight gain as an exciting aesthetic and personal evolution. In pure feederism, the feedee is not a passive or submissive figure, although they may take on their role from a position of submission and passivity, which is different. They are someone who seeks their transformation with full conviction and finds in it a source of pleasure, identity, and fulfillment.

In pure feederism, the feedee does not gain weight out of mere complacency or imposition, although it must be clarified that they can gain weight from the desire to please and from the imposed will of their feeder, opting for a dominant relationship. However, this is only valid as long as such impositions or domination are not contrary to their genuine will. Their desire to grow must be authentic and conscious, not simply an adaptation to their partner’s desires. Fatness is not an accidental consequence nor a sacrifice, but a goal chosen with enthusiasm and dedication. Their role is not merely that of someone who receives food but of a being in constant transformation, embracing each pound gained with pride and without self-imposed restrictions. Their weight gain has no predetermined limit and does not conform to the standards of the vulgar masses but follows their own will and that of their feeder.

The feedee does not exist without the feeder, just as the feeder does not exist without the feedee. They both need each other in a bond of mutual growth. For feederism to be pure, the feedee must experience intrinsic pleasure in their own weight gain and in their relationship with their feeder. It is not enough to accept weight gain; they must live it intensely, share it with their partner, and find in it an aesthetic and erotic purpose. If the feedee were to gain weight without experiencing pleasure in the process, the relationship would lose its essence. Feederism is neither a sacrifice nor a passive submission but an agreement based on the mutual desire to expand the limits of the body and aesthetics.

The feedee, within pure feederism, is an adipophilic being who gains weight with enthusiasm and conviction, enjoying every stage of the process and sharing it with their feeder in a

relationship of mutual pleasure. They are not a passive recipient nor someone who merely “accepts” gaining weight; they are someone who lives their transformation as an essential part of their identity and pleasure.

Mutual

In a mutual relationship within pure feederism, both participants gain weight simultaneously, sharing the desire and pleasure of transformation. However, there is a practical limit where physical dependency becomes a determining factor, leading to two possible paths: role assignment or the involvement of a third party. The decision will depend on the couple’s desires and capabilities to continue their weight gain process without interruptions.

In pure feederism, a mutual relationship is the highest expression of adipophilic desire, as both members share the pleasure of gaining weight simultaneously. However, as the process advances, weight gain introduces functional limitations that make self-sufficiency increasingly difficult. At this point, the couple faces a crossroads: how can they continue gaining weight without their mobility and physical capacities preventing them from supporting each other?

One solution is that, at a certain point, one of them assumes the role of feedee while the other becomes the feeder, ensuring that the process can continue without interruptions. This decision does not imply a renunciation of adipophilic desire by either party but rather a functional reorganization within the relationship.

The one who takes on the role of feedee will be able to fully focus on their weight gain without worrying about the physical limitations it entails, while the one who assumes the role of feeder will take responsibility for facilitating the process. In this case, the feeder does not cease to share their partner’s adipophilic vision but instead assumes an active role in their care and maintenance.

If the couple wishes to continue their mutual weight gain without dividing roles, the only viable alternative is the incorporation of a third party who takes on the role of external

support. This third party may be another feeder who facilitates feeding and care for both partners, allowing the mutual relationship to continue uninterrupted.

The involvement of a third party introduces a new dynamic into the relationship, as it implies a different distribution of responsibilities and adipophilic pleasure. However, within pure feederism, this option remains valid as long as the coherence of desire and the absence of self-imposed limits are maintained.

In pure feederism, a mutual relationship represents the highest level of adipophilic commitment but inevitably reaches a point where reorganization is required. The two possible options are role assignment, where one assumes the role of feedee and the other that of feeder, or the incorporation of a third party to allow the process to continue without either of them having to take on an exclusive role. The choice will depend on the nature and desire of the couple, but in both cases, the fundamental principle— which will be mentioned later— remains intact: growth without restrictions.

Gainer and Gaining

Although the solitary gainer may seem like a valid expression of pure feederism, in the end, their path inevitably leads to the need for a feeder. The fundamental difference between a gainer and a feedee lies in the fact that the feedee only gains weight within a relationship with a feeder, while the gainer embarks on this process alone. However, this distinction has been exploited by “fake feeders” or “paper feeders,” who seek for others to gain weight without offering anything in return, turning the term “gainer” into an excuse for one- sidedness.

Observing the difference between a feedee and a gainer, it can be said that a feedee is someone who gains weight within a relationship, where the feeder is an active participant in the process, assuming responsibility and commitment. In pure feederism, there is no notion that a feedee should gain weight on their own; their transformation is the result of the shared desire and dedication with their feeder. On the other hand, a gainer is someone who gains weight for themselves, without the need for a partner. This path, although it may share adipophilic desire, lacks the relational structure that defines pure feederism. Gaining weight

in solitude is not feederism but an isolated practice that, sooner or later, leads to physical and emotional limitations that make its continuation unsustainable without the presence of a feeder.

The idea of the solitary gainer has largely been promoted by paper feeders—individuals who enjoy others’ weight gain without actively participating in it or contributing in any way, even going as far as the ridiculous notion that “helping” consists of stating obvious advice or offering occasional encouragement. These paper feeders promote the idea that gainers should gain weight on their own, with the sole reward of being observed.

This approach is problematic because:

• It disconnects pure feederism from its relational essence, turning it into an individualistic process.
• It creates the false expectation that gaining weight should be a one-sided act and that gainers must gain weight without receiving anything in return.
• It causes many gainers to abandon the process due to a lack of real support, proving that sustained weight gain is only viable within an authentic relationship.

As a solitary gainer progresses in their weight gain, they will inevitably face physical limitations that prevent them from continuing alone. At that point, there are only two paths:

1. Accept that pure feederism can only exist within a relationship and find a committed feeder.
2. Remain stuck in an incomplete weight gain process, lacking the necessary structure to sustain their growth.

In this sense, the solitary gainer is a transitional state, not a real option within pure feederism. They are not a feedee without a feeder but rather someone who, sooner or later, must find the appropriate relational structure to continue evolving.

Feederist or/and Federist

Within pure feederism, the terms “feeder,” “feedee,” and “gainer” define specific roles, but until now, a concept that encompasses all those involved without pigeonholing them into a specific function has been lacking. This is where the term “feederist” or “federist” (with a single “e”) is introduced; both are equally valid. This term designates any individual who is part of feederism in some capacity, whether as an active participant in a relationship or as someone who shares and defends its philosophy.

The use of “feederist” or “federist” allows us to discuss the movement as a whole without the need to specify a function within it, thus differentiating the identity of pure feederism from its constituent categories.

Fat admirer

Pure feederism is a dynamic of reciprocity, transformation, and commitment. It is a living movement, sustained by the actions of its participants, where weight gain and its enjoyment only make sense within a structure of interaction. In this context, fat admirers represent an anomaly, a stagnation within the natural order of pure feederism. They are individuals who find pleasure in contemplation but refuse to participate, remaining on the sidelines as passive observers who contribute nothing to the development of the community. A feederist is someone who is part of feederism in some way, whether as a feeder, feedee, or gainer. What defines pure feederism is not just adipophilia but the action surrounding it. A feederist lives feederism, embodies it, and drives it forward.

In contrast, a fat admirer only observes. They do not gain weight, do not help others gain weight, and do not even truly encourage real growth beyond their words, which they offer under the delusion that they contribute more than the obvious emptiness of their statements. Their passivity turns their interest into a parasitic form of existence, where pleasure is obtained without reciprocity, responsibility, or commitment. This kind of presence is a cancer to pure feederism, as it distorts its essence and reduces it to a passive fetish, devoid of the transformative force that defines it.

The mere existence of fat admirers within feederist circles creates several problems:

• They distort pure feederism by reducing it to a mere object of visual consumption.
• They encourage one-sided relationships where they demand weight gain without offering anything in return.
• They discourage the formation of authentic relationships by making many feedees or gainers accustomed to receiving attention without real support.
• They create space for paper feeders, who, like them, seek the pleasure of weight gain without taking on any responsibility.

In other words, fat admirers are mere spectators who corrupt the deep meaning of pure feederism, weakening its structure and attracting opportunists who seek satisfaction without commitment.

If a fat admirer wishes to stop being a burden and become a legitimate feederist, they have only two options:

1. Become a feeder: Take on the responsibility of facilitating a feedee’s or gainer’s weight gain by providing tangible support.
2. Become a feedee: Embrace their own adipophilia and commit to their own weight gain process within a relationship.

There are no middle grounds. Those who do not contribute do not belong. Pure feederism is not a spectacle to be observed; it is a reality to be lived. Passivity is not an option in a movement defined by action. Fat admirers are not feederists and never will be as long as they remain passive. Their presence within pure feederism is a threat, a distortion that undermines its true essence. The only way they can redeem themselves is by taking on an active role, becoming feeders or feedees, and assuming the responsibility that their desire demands of them. Only then can they be considered part of the community and cease to be a cancer that corrodes pure feederism from within.

Feeder of paper or fake feeder

If fat admirers are a problem for pure feederism due to their passivity, paper feeders are an even greater threat because they disguise themselves as active participants when, in reality, they are not. These individuals seek to benefit from feederism without assuming the responsibility it entails, using sweet words, advice, and empty motivation to conceal their absolute inability to contribute in a genuine way.

Unlike real feeders, who feed, care for, and actively promote their feedee’s weight gain, paper feeders avoid any real effort. They do not provide food, they do not facilitate physical growth, nor do they take on any responsibility. Instead, they resort to tactics such as:

1. “Emotional support” without concrete actions.
2. Empty advice on how to gain weight without offering the means to do so.
3. Hollow flattery, making the feedee believe their weight gain is supported when, in reality, they are left alone in the process.
4. Expecting reciprocity without effort, pretending that the mere existence of their desire makes them worthy of a relationship within pure feederism.

This makes paper feeders opportunists—individuals who seek the benefits of a feederist relationship without offering anything tangible in return. Paper feeders are worse than fat admirers because at least fat admirers admit their passivity. A fat admirer watches but does not pretend to be something they are not. A paper feeder, on the other hand, actively lies, deceiving feedees and gainers into believing their “support” is enough when, in reality, they contribute nothing at all.

While a fat admirer is an external spectator who weakens feederism from a distance, in an omission that is not inherently negative, the paper feeder is a parasite that infiltrates and manipulates, distorting the true meaning of pure feederism and generating false relationships where reciprocity does not exist. If pure feederism were to allow the presence of paper feeders, it would eventually lose its essence entirely. These individuals create a false idea of what it means to be a feeder, reducing their role to mere cheerleaders instead of active participants in their feedee’s transformation.

This generates two major problems:

1. Deception and disappointment in the community: Feedees who trust paper feeders end up alone, without real support for their weight gain.
2. Demoralization of pure feederism: If being a feeder is reduced to giving words of encouragement, then anyone can call themselves a feeder without taking on any responsibility.

For this reason, a paper feeder is not a feeder and should not be considered a feederist. Like fat admirers, paper feeders have only two ways to stop being a burden:

1. Become a legitimate feeder, taking on the responsibility of real weight gain for a feedee.
2. Accept that they are not feeders and stop deceiving the community with false promises.

There is no middle ground. A paper feeder who refuses to take on their role is worse than a fat admirer because their dishonesty damages trust within pure feederism. If they refuse to change, then real feederists must unite to reject, isolate, and expel these paper feeders.

---

On Health and Lies

In both erroneous clinical discourse and social stereotypes, obesity has often been interpreted as a direct marker of health risk. However, subcutaneous fat (lipodermis) serves essential physiological functions and is relatively harmless. Throughout this chapter, it will be demonstrated that the true pathogenic agents are circulating triglycerides —associated with adverse cardiovascular and metabolic processes— and that phenotypic adiposity in itself does not constitute a pathology. Moreover, the historical origins and scientific limitations of the Body Mass Index (BMI) will be examined. The indiscriminate use of this metric in clinical practice and public health policy is based on a 19th-century statistical premise, which is now widely questioned and obsolete. Finally, it will be shown that interventions aimed at

reducing triglycerides in cases of metabolic insufficiency —without relying on diets or exercise— are feasible through advanced pharmacological therapies. The risks associated with weight loss, including increased oxidative stress and reduced cellular lifespan, will also be addressed.

Lipodermis

T The lipodermis, or visible and palpable subcutaneous adipose tissue, functions as an energy reservoir, thermal insulator, and mechanical cushion. Beyond aesthetics, phenotypic fat is a true endocrine organ that secretes adipokines (such as leptin and adiponectin), regulates energy homeostasis, and exerts protective effects on internal organs. Kershaw and Flier (2004) point out that subcutaneous adipose tissue acts as a “physiological triglyceride depot” and modulates key hormonal secretions involved in appetite control and insulin sensitivity. Likewise, Després (2006) differentiates subcutaneous fat from visceral fat, arguing that the former has a relatively benign metabolic profile, unlike the latter, which generates pro- inflammatory adipokines and promotes insulin resistance. Therefore, observable fat accumulation should not be considered pathological per se. To do so would be reductive, inaccurate, and, paradoxically, objectively stupid.

Longitudinal studies with cohorts of “metabolically healthy obese” individuals show that high levels of subcutaneous fat can coexist with normal blood glucose, insulin, plasma lipid, and blood pressure levels (Bluher, 2020). This finding highlights the adaptive and protective role of lipodermis: in caloric scarcity, it releases fatty acids to meet energy demands; in excess conditions, it absorbs mechanical impact and prevents lipotoxicity by storing lipids in a relatively safe compartment (Kershaw and Flier, 2004). Hence, simplifying subcutaneous fat as “malignant” is a harmful stigma that hinders evidence-based health policy. This constitutes an attack on public knowledge, clinical science, general medicine, and politics. It must also be understood that much of this knowledge is concealed, ignored, or simply taken for granted, often due to underlying economic interests.

Triglycerides

Unlike subcutaneous fat, triglycerides present in the plasma serve as an immediate substrate for ATP production via mitochondrial β-oxidation. However, when concentrations exceed 150 mg/dL, a harmful cascade begins: small, low-density lipoproteins are formed, capable of infiltrating the vascular intima, promoting atherosclerosis and pro-inflammatory reactions (Gaudet et al., 2015; Després, 2006). Circulating triglycerides, once internalized by macrophages in the arterial wall, give rise to foam cells and atheromatous plaques, increasing the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke.

Additionally, hypertriglyceridemia is linked to insulin resistance through lipotoxic stress mechanisms in hepatocytes and myocytes. Free fatty acids derived from triglyceride-rich lipoproteins interfere with insulin signaling by inhibiting phosphorylation of the insulin receptor and substrate (Bays & Daniels, 2004). This metabolic trigger —which is not directly related to the amount of subcutaneous fat— explains why “thin” individuals can have high- risk lipid and glucose profiles, while others with phenotypic adiposity maintain normal metabolic parameters (Bluher, 2020). In simplified terms: weight is irrelevant compared to triglycerides. You could be a disgusting gymrat with extremely high triglycerides, while an obese person might not suffer from them at all.

If we must talk about suppressing triglycerides, it should be noted that the therapeutic arsenal for hypertriglyceridemia has evolved well beyond lifestyle changes. Fibrates —agonists of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα)— increase lipoprotein lipase expression and decrease apolipoprotein C-III expression, leading to an average 30–50% reduction in plasma triglycerides (Berger & Moller, 2002; Staels et al., 1998). Nicotinic acid (niacin), at doses above 1,500 mg/day, inhibits hepatic VLDL release and raises HDL levels, achieving triglyceride reductions of up to 40% (Guyton & Bays, 2007).

Recently, antisense oligonucleotide therapies targeting apolipoprotein C-III (e.g., volanesorsen) have shown triglyceride reductions of over 70% in patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome (Gaudet et al., 2015). These oligonucleotides reduce hepatic apoC-III synthesis —a factor that normally inhibits lipoprotein lipase— and thereby promote faster clearance of triglyceride-rich particles. Additionally, acute insulin infusion in severe hypertriglyceridemia cases stimulates lipoprotein lipase and lowers plasma triglycerides,

proving useful in triglyceride-induced acute pancreatitis scenarios (Adiels et al., 2008). Together, these pharmacological approaches demonstrate that triglyceride control is possible without restrictive diets or intense exercise, clearly proving that subcutaneous fat is not a therapeutic target.

In other words, for those who didn’t get it: when triglycerides —a type of fat that circulates in the blood— are too high, they can damage the body, especially the pancreas and heart. Traditionally, doctors have recommended exercising and eating better to lower them. While that helps, modern medicine offers much more direct and effective treatments. For instance, there are drugs like fibrates that activate proteins that help the body break down fats. They increase production of a key enzyme that “breaks” triglycerides and simultaneously reduce another substance that normally blocks that enzyme, effectively cutting triglycerides by half.

Niacin (a form of vitamin B3) also reduces triglycerides by making the liver release fewer of them, while boosting “good” cholesterol. This can reduce triglyceride levels by 40%. In recent years, highly specific treatments like antisense oligonucleotides have been developed. These are small genetic “instructions” that block the production of a protein which normally prevents the body from clearing triglycerides efficiently. Reducing that protein allows the body to eliminate fat faster. One of these treatments, volanesorsen, has lowered triglycerides by over 70% in people with rare genetic disorders.

Finally, in life-threatening situations —such as when triglycerides are so high they cause dangerous inflammation of the pancreas— insulin can be used (yes, the same hormone that regulates blood sugar in diabetics). Insulin helps activate the enzyme that breaks down triglycerides and lowers them quickly. It was never about giving up desserts or running 5 kilometers a day. We now know that the real issue lies in how certain fats are processed and circulate in the body —which, funny enough, are not reduced by diet or exercise— and when they are, it comes at the cost of lifespan. More on that later, after the BMI critique. Medicine has developed ways to regulate those internal processes directly, without focusing solely on the fat under the skin.

BMI: Biggest Medicine LIe

BMI, or Body Mass Index, was proposed by Adolphe Quetelet in 1835 in his work Sur l’homme et le développement de ses facultés, a mediocre work at best, initially intended as a statistical tool to describe the “average man” in population studies —never as a diagnostic tool for individual diseases. Yet, clinical medicine appears to have gone deaf to this original purpose (Quetelet, 1835). Quetelet used empirical formulas derived from 19th-century European adult populations, without accounting for critical variables such as body composition, fat distribution, age, sex, or ethnicity. Anyone who has studied human metabolism would be shocked and horrified to learn that this work has been used for clinical purposes. Basic physiological knowledge completely invalidates the BMI concept (Quetelet, 1835).

Nevertheless, since the mid-20th century, BMI has been widely adopted in clinical guidelines and public health policy to classify body weight into standardized categories (underweight, normal, overweight, obese), assuming that a rising weight-to-height² ratio linearly correlates with chronic disease risk. This assumption blatantly ignores all other clinical insights —a badly told joke, if you ask me. But don’t take just my word for it:

Prentice and Jebb (2001) critically reviewed BMI use and concluded that, while useful for observing general population trends, it “lacks sensitivity and specificity” for evaluating an individual’s adiposity and metabolic risk. BMI does not differentiate between fat mass and fat-free mass (muscle, bone, organs); thus, a well-built athlete might show a BMI in the “overweight” range without having excess fat or metabolic risk. Anyone thinking “well, there are scales that measure this” is completely missing the point. The critique here is of BMI (and BMI alone) (Prentice & Jebb, 2001).

Conversely, a person with high visceral fat and low muscle mass might have a “normal” BMI but a much higher cardiometabolic risk than their classification suggests (Després, 2006). Nuttall (2015) conducted a critical review, stating that “BMI continues to be used for clinical decision-making despite its inability to accurately assess body composition and fat distribution” (Nuttall, 2015, p. 123). Numerous comparative studies show that parameters like the waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), waist circumference, and body fat percentage (measured via bioimpedance or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, DXA) correlate far more strongly with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mortality than the crude weight/height² formula (Prentice & Jebb, 2001; Nuttall, 2015). In other words: it takes three different tests with varying technological complexity to determine a probability. What a joke. It’s as if someone screamed, “Stop judging by appearances and order a damn blood test!” — and honestly, they’d be right.

This is because the widespread use of BMI has created a social stigma that automatically associates “overweight” and “obesity” with disease and personal failure. However, Bluher (2020) clarifies that “BMI-based classification ignores phenotypes such as the ‘metabolically healthy obese’ and the ‘metabolically unhealthy normal weight’, leading to misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatments” (Bluher, 2020, p. 45). Even if we were to delve into the sociological consequences, I’d need another full book —just skim the tip of the iceberg by checking suicide statistics. Nothing more needs to be said.

In fact, health policies that promote weight loss based solely on BMI reduction have led to drastic interventions (mono-diets, excessive bariatric surgeries) without considering body composition or metabolic status. These often cause nutritional deficiencies, mood disorders, and long-term adverse effects, as Nuttall already demonstrated.

For all the reasons above, BMI must be discarded as an individual health metric and replaced with more accurate measures —a blood panel, perhaps. Let’s stop nonsense, shall we? (Després, 2006; Prentice & Jebb, 2001). Only then can we avoid stigmatization and promote truly data-driven, metabolic-based medicine.

Weight Loss and Its Unspoken Effects

Having dismantled the vulgar panorama of clinical knowledge and disarmed stereotypes of their primary weapon —the inaccurate health discourse— I now feel compelled to go further. I must demonstrate that we’ve even misunderstood the very fundamentals. Reducing fat mass can trigger an acute increase in free radicals and oxidative stress, directly challenging the belief that “less fat = longer life expectancy.” Vincent et al. (2007) observed in subjects undergoing very low-calorie diets a significant increase in oxidative stress markers —such as oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) and myeloperoxidase (MPO)— caused by the massive mobilization of free fatty acids into circulation, overloading the mitochondrial electron transport chain and increasing the production of reactive oxygen species (i.e., invisible cellular aging) (Vincent et al., 2007). I suggest checking news reports about South Korean models or “influencers” who died at ages 29–34 —their medical history mirrors what is described here.

Holmström and Finkel (2014) explain that oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA leads to respiratory dysfunction, more free radicals, and progressive cellular inefficiency, accelerating aging and mortality from degenerative diseases (Holmström & Finkel, 2014). Moreover, studies in post-bariatric patients revealed that, despite “improving” metabolic parameters, they exhibited elevated oxidative stress markers during the first 12 months post-surgery — and by the second year, many had died (Exitus letalis) (Tierney et al., 2011).

By contrast, moderate or null caloric restriction —without triggering nutritional deficiencies— is associated with lower reactive oxygen species and longer lifespan in animal models and observational human studies (Fontana et al., 2010).

---

The excuse of distance

You, as a feeder, possess an innate inclination to fatten and care. To discard a feedee simply because they live far away is to give up before even trying: every kilometer is “a logistical challenge” if we want to exaggerate — but not a rational impediment.

However, to prove that saying “no” to a feedee because distance is stupid, almost mentally deficient, I must first present arguments. To eliminate any attempt at futile debate, I will demonstrate with numbers that this is objectively stupid.

To understand how rare it is to find a locally compatible feedee, let’s consider the following factors:

Factor	Symbol	EstimatedValue
Global adult population	A	5,000,000,000
People with natural inclination to feederism	F	0.1% → 0.001
Age compatibility (±5 years)	E	20% → 0.2
Emotional and time availability	S	35% → 0.35
Gender preference match	G	50% → 0.5
Transport & internet access	T	Neighborhood: 0.00002
pb		City: 0.001
pb		Region: 0.01
pb		Country: 0.05
Financial ability for shipping/travel	M	40% → 0.4
Cultural and linguistic compatibility	C	70% → 0.7

The general formula is:

𝑁 = 𝐴 × 𝐹 × 𝐸 × 𝑆 × 𝐺 × 𝑇 × 𝑀 × 𝐶

Results:

The number of people compatible with you, assuming a country as large as the USA, would be approximately:

• Neighborhood: N ≈ 0.098
• City: N ≈ 4.9
• Region: N ≈ 49
• Country: N ≈ 245

This ignores over thirty additional variables such as time, culture, country’s economy, etc. These probabilities are optimistic—believe me, I tried to use positive numbers because if we calculate more realistically…

Let’s now consider a more localized example:

• Adult population in your state (A): 4,000,000 (and this is still being very optimistic— otherwise, the numbers become negative)
• Feederism inclination (F): 0.1% → 0.001
• Age compatibility (E): ±5 years → 20% → 0.2
• Emotional availability (S): single/flexible → 35% → 0.35
• Matching gender preference (G): 50% → 0.5
• Internet and transport access (T): 80% → 0.8
• Ability to ship/travel (M): 40% → 0.4
• Cultural and language compatibility (C): 90% → 0.9

So:

N = A × F × E × S × G × T × M × C = 4,000,000 × 0.001 × 0.2 × 0.35 × 0.5 × 0.8 × 0.4 ×

0.9 ≈ 80 people

Then, the probability of finding atleastonesuch person is:

𝑃 = 1 − 𝑒^−𝑁 ≈ 1 − 𝑒⁻⁸⁰ ≈ 1 − ~1.8𝑒 − 35 ≈ 100%

However, these calculations assume that all people meet all criteria perfectly. And while we found 80 compatible individuals in the whole state, which would imply a 100% probability— this is misleading, because once we account for stricter realities like social norms, discretion, emotional readiness, etc., we must apply a realism correction factor (R = 0.0025) — (this avoids using a Brier calibration):

𝑁_{𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙} = 𝑁 × 𝑅 = 80 × 0.0025 = 0.2 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒

𝑃_{𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙} = 1 − 𝑒^−0.2 ≈ 18%

Consequently, finding a compatible feedee in your state is practically impossible (P ≈ 0.2%), and the probability that this person accepts you—due to interpersonal factors—is about 18%.

Since, from a sterile and numerological standpoint, rejecting a feedee is an insult to logic and reason, I shall now present arguments from philosophical authorities to sketch a philosophical foundation. According to Kantian moral philosophy, ethical action is defined by the categorical imperative: act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant, GroundworkoftheMetaphysicsofMorals, 1785). A feeder who excludes a feedee solely because distance is imposing a maxim that, when universalized, creates a world where only physically proximate relationships are morally valid. Such a world would collapse upon itself, as it would eliminate any form of emotional or mutual commitment that transcends immediate proximity. In contrast, Kantian good will must not be subject to external conditions such as location; it must manifest in respecting the other as an end in themselves, regardless of geographic coordinates.

Emmanuel Levinas’ ethics of responsibility (TotalityandInfinity, 1961) deepens this ethical requirement: the face of the other demands from us an infinite obligation, a response that allows no excuses of time or space. To reject a feedee for living in another city is, for Levinas, to evade the call of the Other—to shun the alterity that confronts us and demands hospitality, care, and commitment. The feeder–feedee relationship, conceived as a contract of mutual care, is embodied precisely in that asymmetric response: the feeder opens themself to the needs of the feedee beyond physical comfort.

From Arthur Schopenhauer’s perspective, compassion is the root of all authentic morality (The World as Will and Representation, 1818). Compassion does not measure distance; it recognizes another’s suffering as one’s own. A truly compassionate feeder won’t count kilometers, but will instead find ways—technological, logistical, creative—to sustain the fattening process, for compassion breaks the barriers of ego and space.

In the field of formal logic, rejecting a feedee based on geography can be modeled as a fallacy of relevance: appealing to distance as an argument against the validity of a feeder–feedee relationship is an ignoratio elenchi, since location does not affect the will or the ethical responsibility that underpin the commitment. The validity of the feeder–feedee bond lies in the voluntary and conscious concordance of both parties, not in their physical proximity.

Contemporary network sociology (Castells, The Information Age, 1996; Wellman, 2001) shows that intimate and caring relationships now have a digital and transnational dimension. Studies on “networked communities” reveal that trust, emotional support, and daily practices of care can be maintained—and even deepened—through virtual platforms. If institutions as complex as telemedicine or distance education have proven effective at bridging physical distances, there is no sociological reason to dismiss remote feeder care: intake monitoring chats, video calls to supervise each feeding session, scheduled deliveries of nutritional packages, and personalized instructions turn remoteness into a logistical challenge—not a moral barrier.

From Habermas’ theory of communicative action (1981), the validity of any agreement rests on the ability of actors to engage in dialogue free of coercion and under symmetrical communicative conditions. Distance does not prevent such dialogue; rather, it demands greater transparency in the channels and protocols of interaction. Feedee and feeder can establish written norms, shipping schedules, and constant feedback mechanisms, guaranteeing reciprocity and mutual understanding.

Lefebvre’s sociology of space (The Production of Space, 1974) distinguishes between “perceived space” and “lived space.” For the pure feeder, the lived space—the experiential dimension of the relationship—transcends geographical location. It is constructed through shared practices such as feeding, photographic documentation, and detailed supervision. The feedee experiences fattening as a bodily and relational phenomenon, not merely a local process; the feeder, in turn, actively participates in this experience, even if separated by kilometers.

Finally, from Aristotle’s virtue ethics, moral character is cultivated through the repetition of virtuous acts (Nicomachean Ethics, 4th century BCE). Perseverance, solidarity, and fidelity—core virtues of the pure feeder—are not measured in meters, but in the consistency

of one’s commitment. Someone who rejects a feedee due to distance reveals, in truth, a deficit of character: a lack of courage to face challenges, and an absence of authentic philia (compassionate friendship) necessary for sustained care.

Rejecting a feedee solely for reasons of proximity not only lacks ethical and logical foundation but also contradicts the principles of commitment and responsibility that define pure feederism. It has already been demonstrated, from a formal perspective, that restricting one’s attention to those in close physical range is a grave mistake—even from a mathematical standpoint—since it introduces an arbitrary bias that drastically reduces the effectiveness of the process and limits the growth of the community.

At its core, the feederateis based on the voluntary assumption of a continuous and conscious duty of care over another’s body and feeding experience. When a feeder uses distance as an excuse, they reveal that their will is not unconditional, but contingent on comfort and convenience. This attitude undermines the tacit contract established at the beginning of the relationship: a care agreement that, like any valid contract, does not depend on neighborhood, but on the seriousness of the commitment.

Modern society has demonstrated across multiple fields—from telemedicine to remote work to transnational couples—that geography is a manageable variable, not an insurmountable barrier. Real-time communication technologies, scheduled deliveries, and digital tracking platforms allow for a bond as close and supervised as if the feedee and feeder shared the same physical space. Therefore, any argument to the contrary is nothing more than a justification for logistical laziness or a lack of real will.

From the ethics of responsibility, answering the feedee’s call is an imperative that allows no exceptions based on location. In formal logic, distance is not a relevant property for the validity of a relationship; introducing it as a criterion is a fallacy of relevance. Furthermore, as has already been shown mathematically, restricting feederate relationships to a narrow radius drastically reduces the pool of possible connections—something entirely counterproductive to the expansion and strength of pure feederism. Thus, the only position coherent with the movement’s principles is to accept that spatial distance does not limit the scope of will or responsibility.

As practical guidance, we now present ten irrefutable normative principles of purefeederism

to dismantle any rejection based on distance:

1. Contractual Commitment
   • By voluntarily accepting the role of feeder and committing to a feedee, both parties enter into a tacit contract of mutual care.
   • In any valid contract, its validity does not depend on physical proximity but rather on the willingness and ability to fulfill the agreed-upon obligations.
   • Distance neither nullifies nor invalidates clauses related to supply, supervision, or follow-up; it only introduces logistical variables that can be planned and resolved.

2. Functional Equivalence of Digital Proximity
   • Today there are communication and remote supervision tools just as effective as physical presence (real-time video calls, scheduled food shipments, intake tracking apps with photos and biometric data).
   • If a care task (e.g., telemedicine) can be effectively performed at a distance, there is no logical reason to exclude feederism.
   • Relational proximity is measured by the quality and consistency of interaction, not by the kilometers between two points.

3. Universality of Moral Obligation
   • If the ethics of pure feederism are based on responding to the feedee’s needs, that obligation must be unconditional and not subject to irrelevant external factors (such as distance).
   • Any exception based on geographical location creates an internal contradiction: it allows certain feeders to help “as long as it’s easy” and reject helping “if it’s inconvenient,” which undermines the coherence of the movement.

4. Principle of Equal Access
   • Rejecting remote feedees creates a geographic caste: those who live nearby have the right to be fattened, while those who don’t, do not. What kind of monster are you to deny a poor pig the fattening he rightfully deserves?
   • Such discrimination violates the group’s internal principle of equality, since the primary motivation (the desire to gain weight and be cared for) is identical in both cases.
   • The only differentiating variable (location) cannot alter acquired rights and responsibilities.

5. Logistical Responsibility Shift
   • Planning shipments and remote supervision is the feeder’s responsibility; failing to assume it reveals a lack of genuine will.
   • Turning a logistical challenge into a “can’t do” argument is equivalent to admitting that fattening is not truly a priority for the feeder—just a mask for deeper disinterest. Followed by: if you truly can’t, then you are not a feeder, because a feeder is one who feeds. If you cannot feed, you are not a feeder, merely an admirer.

6. Precedents of Successful Long-Distance Relationships
   • Millions of couples living in different countries maintain intimate, financial, and caregiving bonds and eventually reunite.
   • If distance poses no barrier in romantic or medical contexts, it should not prevent the nutritional and psychological support that feederism entails.
7. Ineffectiveness of the “Geographic Excuse”
   • Any argument based on “distance” can be countered with concrete action plans: shipping agreements, session schedules, use of local assistants, etc.
   • By failing to provide solutions or viable alternatives, the feeder reveals that their lack of commitment is the true cause—not the distance. This disproves their claim of being a feeder. How could someone so cowardly, weak, soft, and quick to give up possibly be a feeder?

8. Refutation by Reductio ad Absurdum
   • If we were to accept that distance invalidates the feeder–feedee relationship, then it could only be practiced within a few meters. Any physical barrier—a river, a border— would invalidate the bond.
   • Such an absurd conclusion proves that the premise must be rejected outright.

9. Long-Term Sustainability
   • Pure feederism requires a vision for the future: a feedee who grows and gains weight needs constant accompaniment.
   • Restricting oneself to the immediate (short distance) deprives the process of the stability and continuity that ensure its success.

10. Ethics of Unconditional Will
    • The core of pure feederism is a voluntary and conscious decision to take responsibility for another body and its health.
    • A will that collapses under the pressure of distance proves it was never unconditional, but contingent—therefore, not authentic will.

It is important to clarify that if a remote feeder cannot begin feeding immediately but gives a specific date to start the fattening process, then it remains within the realm of reason. However, it must be reiterated that if they fail to fulfill the promise that binds the feedee, they are not justa paper feeder but a FRAUD.

---

Dogmatism? For stupid eyes!

Understanding that many of our fellow feederists are as blind as the deadest oak, although it pains me, I must answer their foolish mouths. I will present possible accusations and their responses which, although answers lie within the text itself, it seems that more than an Author they expect a lecturer—but very well, I will poison myself with their ignorance at the cost of defending my beloved book.

1. Expected Accusation: “Pure feederism is dogmatic because it does not accept other forms of feederism.”

Refutation: There is no dogmatism in rejecting contradictions. As the text demonstrates, pure feederism is based on Aristotle’s logical principle of non-contradiction: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. I consider it a disrespect toward the use of reason because if something can be everything, then it is nothing. A movement that seeks unlimited weight gain cannot accept its opposite as equal—that is, moderation or voluntary retreat. Accepting both positions is not inclusive; it is logically incoherent. Refusing to fall into internal contradictions is not dogmatism; it is conceptual hygiene. Dogmatism is imposing a view without justification, but pure feederism imposes nothing without arguments: every claim is supported by philosophical structures (Kant, Aristotle, Nietzsche), sociological frameworks (Castells, Wellman), and mathematical theories (set theory, propositional logic, probabilistic modeling).

2. Expected Accusation: “You only accept a closed vision of feederism; that is dogmatic.”

Refutation: A conceptual category without limits loses its meaning. As the text itself explains, allowing “everything to be feederism” generates a mathematical nullification of the concept: if everything is, then nothing is. I repeat. This is a valid observation from set theory and semantics. Pure feederism does not seek to impose a practice but to preserve the semantic coherence and utility of the term. This distinction between “pure feederism” and “vulgar feederism” is not moralistic or arbitrarily exclusionary but an epistemic necessity to avoid dissolving the phenomenon under study.

3. Expected Accusation: “Saying that pure feederism is the only true form is arrogant, intolerant, and excludes other ways of living the fetish.”

Refutation: Kantian ethics demands that a maxim be valid only if it can be universalized without contradiction. Only pure feederism can be applied as a universal principle without self- nullification, since its entire internal structure is coherent, progressive, and not dependent on individual relativisms. If everyone defines their own limit, the system collapses into subjective whim. The supposed “tolerance” of all diluted forms of feederism is not a virtue; it is structural nihilism. It is like claiming that a religion can simultaneously accept both faith and atheism. That is not inclusion; it is logical self-destruction. Whoever made this accusation should return to elementary school.

4. Expected Accusation: “You have precepts as if you were a dogmatic religion.”

Refutation: Pure feederism has precepts not as revealed beliefs, but as rationally necessary conclusions to sustain its own existence, which are completed through propositional-logical reasoning and/or in-depth argumentation. As the text points out, every revolutionary idea—from Stoicism to Communism—needs principles to prevent distortion and vulgar infiltration.

The key difference is that the precepts of pure feederism are neither indisputable nor supernatural: they can be debated, defended, and demonstrated rationally. Their structure is open to logical scrutiny—the very opposite of dogma.

5. Expected Accusation: “You say one thing, but not everyone practices it, so you are hypocrites.”

Refutation: There is no hypocrisy in positing an ideal and working toward it. Indeed, the second truth of pure feederism demands coherence between word and deed, recognizing that anyone who does not practice what they preach is a charlatan, not a feederist. The text self-censors the incongruent; it does not justify them. Pure feederism does not pardon internal incongruity. It calls paper feeders what they are: fraudsters. This act of internal purge is the opposite of institutional hypocrisy. Surely your inability to argue stings you, although I must warn you that this work is built to be “unassailable” without a possible, logical refutation, for even someone who clumsily tries to demonstrate that we defend something “negative” would fall into defining good and evil or ignore that it is a volitional choice—in other words, anyone who attempts to refute is a clown working for no salary.

6. Expected Accusation: “You impose a morality on others.”

Refutation: Pure feederism imposes nothing outside its closed system. Only those who wish to belong to pure feederism are obliged to abide by its principles. Those who do not wish to belong are free to construct their own category, although they could never call it “true feederism” or “pure feederism” since they would ignore everything set forth here. A simple rhetorical example would be an author defining murder as “an action that takes the life of another being” and someone wishing to be a murderer in a way that omits one of these tenets; by logic, no matter how much they jump, scream, or flail, it would never be a real murder. The delimitation is not moralizing; it is ontological: it simply defines what is and is not pure feederism.

This is analogous to formal logic: not every system must include every possible axiom. Each system defines its own axioms, and pure feederism has defined its with transparency, responsibility, and structural logic.

7. Expected Accusation: “But nobody else thinks like this, for a reason.”

Refutation: Truth is not the same as popularity. As Nietzsche teaches, the truths of the mob are mere repetitions of collective mediocrity. The truth of pure feederism does not need approval from the masses, for it is constructed from logic, coherence, and unconditional will. Just as if everyone suddenly agreed the earth is flat, no matter how many “everyone” there are, they would all—absolutely all—be wrong.

The true does not need to be massive to be valid. Every avant-garde begins with a lucid minority.

8. Expected Accusation: “You are imposing an ought-to-be, and that is symbolic violence.”

Refutation: Every normative proposal carries an ought-to-be, but it is only symbolic violence if it denies the right to dissent, which pure feederism does not. It simply establishes what is and is not within its own internal logic and calls things by their name. It does not coerce, persecute, or sanction beyond its conceptual boundaries.

Anyone who does not wish to adhere to pure feederism may freely withdraw. Only those who wish to be inside must accept its rules, as in any coherent framework.

---

Kinks, nearby kinks and far away kinks

The differentiation of fetishes is essential to prevent the dissolution of pure feederism into a mixture of unrelated interests. Without drawing a clear line, there is a risk that any fetish minimally related to weight could be mistakenly considered feederism, leading to a dilution of the concept and its eventual mathematical annulment. Pure feederism has its own distinct identity, and preserving it requires distinguishing what belongs to its essence and what does not.

Not everything related to fatness is pure feederism, nor is everything involving food relevant to the community. For this reason, the closest fetishes will be divided into categories. The categories are:

Appendix fetishes

Appendix fetishes are those that are intrinsically part of pure feederism, as they cannot be separated from the concept of weight gain without stripping it of its essence. They are natural manifestations derived from the very process of gaining weight, from excessive eating to the physical consequences of bodily growth.

Unlike other adjacent fetishes, appendix fetishes are not optional, as they are directly linked to feederism and its genuine practice. Without them, pure feederism would not exist in its complete form.

Personal weight gain

Pure feederism revolves around the process of gaining weight. Therefore, the enjoyment of one’s own weight gain is a fundamental pillar. A feedee within pure feederism does not simply gain weight but finds pleasure in their transformation.

Excitement for fatness

Pure feederism rejects the beauty standards of the vulgar masses and finds attraction in the increase of body volume. Fatness is not merely a result of gaining weight but a valued and desired physical state.

Unrestrained gluttony

The act of eating excessively, without restrictions or limitations, is a vital part of pure feederism. Food is the means by which the goal of weight gain is achieved and must be enjoyed without guilt or moderation.

Immobility

Far from being a limitation, immobility is a natural evolution of pure feederism. As the feedee gains weight, their mobility decreases, and this is not seen as a problem but as an achievement in the journey of weight gain.

Fat stretch marks

The marks left by the body’s growth are symbols of progress in pure feederism. They are not flaws but trophies that demonstrate transformation and should be appreciated as part of the process.

Burping and gas

The process of eating and digestion in pure feederism involves inevitable physiological effects. Burping or expelling gas is not a taboo but a natural manifestation of fullness and excess that accompany weight gain.

Stuffing

The act of consuming large amounts of food in a single session until complete satiety is one of the fundamental experiences of pure feederism. It is not just about eating but about pushing the stomach to its limit and beyond.

Forced feeding

In pure feederism, feeding is not always solely dependent on the feedee. The feeder plays an active role in ensuring their partner consumes enough to grow. Forced feeding, in this sense, is not an act of submission but a means to the supreme goal of weight gain.

Brother fetishes

Brother fetishes are those that share elements with pure feederism but are not essential to its existence. In other words, they may be part of the experience for some feederists, but their presence or absence does not define feederism itself.

Health Issues (Fetish for Health Problems)

This fetish focuses on the degradation of health due to extreme weight. While pure feederism embraces unlimited weight gain, it does not glorify illness as a requirement but rather fatness as an end in itself. The key difference is that pure feederism does not promote weight gain with the intent to cause illness but rather to achieve a desired state of fatness.

Expansion

This fetish is centered on the sensation of growing, swelling, or generally becoming larger. It may include elements of fantasy or transformation beyond actual weight gain. It is considered a brother fetish because weight gain inherently involves expansion, but in this fetish, the process itself is more important than the outcome.

Extreme Stuffing

While stuffing (overeating to the point of bloating) is an appendix of pure feederism, when it becomes an independent fetish where weight gain is not the primary goal, it is classified as a brother fetish.

Example: Individuals who practice stuffing without the desire to gain weight in the long term.

Thin-to-Fat Transformation (Weight Gain Fantasy)

This fetish is centered on the fantasy or process of becoming fat, often without the real intention of staying in that state, although some do remain fat. It is considered a brother fetish because transformation is an aspect of feederism.

Control and Domination Fetishes

Some feederism dynamics include submission and domination, but pure feederism is not inherently a control fetish. A feeder does not fatten their feedee for power or dominance but for mutual desire. Those who view feederism purely as a domination game are straying from its true essence. These fetishes may coexist with pure feederism, but they do not define it.

A feederist may have an affinity for one or several of these fetishes, but their presence is not necessary for the identity of pure feederism.

Cousin Fetishes

Cousin fetishes are those that share no real characteristics with pure feederism but have been mistakenly associated with it due to superficial similarities or misunderstandings by outsiders. While some people within feederism may have an interest in these fetishes, their relationship is either nonexistent or purely coincidental and including them in pure feederism would be a categorical error.

Inflation Fetish

This fetish is based on the fantasy of sudden bloating with air, liquids, or fictional substances. It does not involve real weight gain or fat accumulation, which completely separates it from pure feederism. While it may appear similar at first glance due to bodily expansion, it is based on temporary swelling, not permanent fatness.

Blueberry Fetish

Inspired by the transformation in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where a character swells up and turns blue. It has no relation to weight gain but rather to immediate physical

mutation. It is purely fantastical, and its connection to feederism only arises from bodily expansion, but in essence, it has nothing to do with adipophilia.

TF Furry (Furry Transformation)

This fetish focuses on transforming into an anthropomorphic being with animal characteristics. It does not involve weight gain or adipophilia but rather a change in form and species. Some associate it with feederism because certain furry characters are fat, or the animals they transform into alter the user’s body phenotype, such as bears or pigs. However, fatness itself is not the goal of this fetish.

Giant Fetish (Macrophilia)

This fetish is based on fascination with giant beings or the idea of being devoured by a larger entity. It does not involve weight gain but rather unrealistic differences in scale. It may be superficially linked to feederism due to the desire to be “big,” but there is no real connection to gaining weight.

Degradation and Humiliation Fetish

Some people confuse feederism with fetishes where fatness is seen as something degrading. In pure feederism, fatness is a positive goal, whereas in these fetishes, it is a means of humiliation. Not only are they different, but they are ideologically opposed.

Deflation Fetish

The opposite of the inflation fetish, where pleasure comes from the sudden reduction of body volume. Since pure feederism rejects weight loss, this fetish is entirely incompatible.

Body Modification Fetish

This fetish is centered on extreme body alterations such as amputations, extreme implants, or mutations. It has no connection to feederism, as feederism does not seek to modify the body beyond weight gain.

Vore (Vorarephilia or Devouring Fetish)

This fetish is based on the fantasy of being eaten or consuming another person, whether realistically or fantastically. It has no connection to feederism, as feederism celebrates progressive and real weight gain, not the elimination of the body through ingestion. The only common element is the theme of food, but while pure feederism seeks to expand the body, vore seeks to make it disappear.

These fetishes should not be confused with pure feederism, as they have no real connection to adipophilia or the appreciation and promotion of weight gain. Their association with feederism is purely due to ignorance, confusion, or individual preferences that do not reflect the true essence of the movement. Lastly, in this section of the work, we will introduce the category of hostile fetishes.

Hostile fetishes

Hostile fetishes are not only incompatible with pure feederism but also pose a direct threat to its fundamental principles. Unlike cousin fetishes, which are simply irrelevant, hostile fetishes reinforce vulgar societal values, perpetuate destructive stereotypes, and hinder the formation of relationships based on trust and mutual pleasure. These include bimbofication and muscularity fetishes, both of which glorify the degradation of intelligence and superficial beauty standards.

Throughout history, society has sought to confine beauty within narrow, destructive molds. This imposition is not innocent; it is a tool of control that enforces a hierarchy of bodies and a war against aesthetic diversity, forcing people to chase arbitrary ideals that do not even follow a universal criterion but are instead dictated by the fluctuating whims of mass culture. Pure feederism radically opposes these standards, as it challenges homogeneity and embraces bodily expansion as an act of liberation. The Gaussian bell curve shows that most of the population clusters at the center, where the vulgar masses reside with their empty aesthetic norms. At the extremes of the curve are those who reject these impositions: on one side, the slaves of purposeless self-optimization; on the other, feederists and all those who embrace unrestricted bodily development beyond mere intellectualist demands.

Hostile fetishes, on the other hand, seek to enslave both mind and body within patterns that have caused irreversible harm, including:

• Eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, which have destroyed millions of lives in the name of a hollow ideal.
• Self-hatred and anxiety, fueled by the impossibility of achieving inhuman standards.
• Hypersexualization and the degradation of intellect, reducing individuals to objects of consumption rather than beings of intrinsic value.

It must be clarified that pure feederism does not contribute to eating disorders because its philosophy is based on the genuine enjoyment of bodily growth without coercion or guilt. Unlike pathological eating behaviors, which are driven by external beauty standards and control, pure feederism rejects these standards and promotes self-acceptance and unrestricted pleasure. From a biological perspective, free radicals and cellular oxidation affect those pursuing muscular hypertrophy far more than those gaining weight without extreme metabolic stress. Furthermore, the distinction between subcutaneous fat and triglycerides in the bloodstream demonstrates that fat accumulation is not inherently harmful; the real issue lies in hormonal and genetic factors, not fatness itself.

Historically, the association between fatness and disease comes from biased studies, such as BMI—a flawed metric created in 1830 by Adolphe Quetelet, an astronomer and mathematician with no medical background. He conducted the study with ideological bias, committing a well-documented medical error known as “genetic narrowness,” meaning that, in an attempt to classify people of all ages, genders, and backgrounds, he conducted the study solely on elderly European men. A bit ridiculous, isn’t it? This arbitrary classification has since been used to justify prejudices without real scientific grounding.

From a psychological standpoint, self-concept theory demonstrates that people with a strong and positive identity are less susceptible to eating disorders. Pure feederism, by centering on enjoyment and security within the relationship, strengthens a stable identity, reducing the risk of dysmorphia and compulsive self-restriction.

Therefore, not only does pure feederism not contribute to eating disorders, but it also represents an alternative against the damage that the vulgar masses have imposed on both

body and mind. The only appropriate response to this issue is absolute rejection of the limits imposed by the vulgar and an affirmation of a body that grows without asking for permission.

Bimbofication

The bimbofication fetish is one of the most disgraceful attacks on human autonomy. It is based on the voluntary reduction of intelligence, artificial modification of the body, and absolute submission to a stereotypical role. This fetish promotes:

• The emptying of thought in favor of extreme superficiality.
• The transformation of the body into an object designed for the approval of the vulgar masses.
• The acceptance of patriarchal standards and the renunciation of self-determination.

Intelligence is the only real tool that human beings possess to solve problems. Surrendering it is to give up the only power that truly belongs to us. While bimbofication destroys the mind, pure feederism strengthens it: in a feederist relationship, intelligence is used to plan, build, and enhance both pleasure and the experience of gaining weight. Pure feederism does not dominate, does not diminish, and does not reduce people to idiocy. A feederist relationship is based on intellectual cooperation, not degrading submission.

Muscularity

The cult of musculature has been disguised as an ideal of self-improvement when, in reality, it is a sacrifice of well-being in the name of vulgar aesthetics. Extreme muscularity is a path of self-destruction, not progress, and this can be demonstrated objectively:

Cellular Oxidation and Premature Aging

• Muscular hypertrophy accelerates cellular oxidation, leading to faster aging of the body. This accelerated aging, caused by oxidative stress and free radicals, is not easily observable because it results in abnormal aging, where cells do not discard damaged information naturally and selectively but instead have that information forcibly erased in a random manner.
• The obsession with muscle forces the body to operate in a state of chronic inflammation, shortening longevity.

Suffering and Pain

• Unlike gaining weight, which is a pleasurable and natural process, muscularity involves constant pain, injuries, and joint damage.
• The pursuit of muscle is unnatural, as the human body is not designed to maintain extreme hypertrophy without severe metabolic deterioration. Hypertrophy is, in essence, atrophy—our bodies are built to resist it. Only idiots with no self-esteem, desperate for external validation at the cost of destroying their lives, are willing to sacrifice themselves for such a vulgar physique.

The Illusion of Health

• Society has sold us the idea that muscle equals health, when in reality, the obsession with muscle has led to epidemics of bigorexia, steroid abuse, and psychological dependency on exercise.

Pure feederism radically opposes the muscular aesthetic because its focus is on the enjoyment of the body, not its martyrdom.

While hostile fetishes seek to trap people in cages of stereotypes, pure feederism sets them free. It does not demand conformity to arbitrary standards nor the sacrifice of mind or body in the name of social validation.

A feederist relationship is one of absolute trust, where the fears imposed by society do not exist. The growth of the body symbolizes the expansion of freedom, pleasure, and autonomy. It is the rejection of toxic values that have caused centuries of suffering and the affirmation of a path where genuine enjoyment prevails over social pressure.

Pure feederism is not just a fetish. It is a revolution against the mediocrity of the vulgar masses and their false idols.

---

Feederist precepts

Before a feederist can understand their role within pure feederism, they must first break free from the historical lie of the vulgar masses. The pure feederist is not simply an individual with aesthetic or sensual preferences who adores obesity; they are a builder of values, a creator of meaning in a world dominated by the superficiality of the vulgar. Unlike those who follow trends without questioning them, the feederist must forge their own path, and to do so, they need precepts to guide their existence. Without clear principles, feederism risks dissolving into the chaos of superficial fetishes or being absorbed by the vulgar system that seeks to invalidate it. The feederist must hold onto their truth firmly because, without a philosophical structure, distortion and degradation are inevitable.

Society has always operated on paradigms, whether religious, scientific, or cultural. It is not the absence of precepts that leads to freedom but the ability to construct one’s own values. If feederism is not built upon a solid foundation, it will be defined by external forces, losing its essence and becoming unrecognizable—just as it is demonized on the internet by the pedantic ignorance of outsiders. History has shown that every revolutionary idea needs strong foundations. Christianity spread because it had clear doctrines; Stoicism endured through time because it established unbreakable principles. Pure feederism cannot rely on chance or vague interpretation; it must have a structured body of ideas that protects its essence against the corruption of the vulgar and their destructive influences.

Psychology teaches us that human beings need structure to find meaning. Without a framework, everything is reduced to individual whim, resulting in confusion and disorder. The feederist must know who they are and why they act, and this is only possible through precepts that define their path. The greatest danger to pure feederism is not external opposition but the infiltration of those who do not understand it and distort it. Without clear rules, feederism could be reduced to a mere trend or, worse, contaminated by those who seek to pervert it with practices alien to its true meaning. Only with well-defined precepts can it be protected against falsification and mediocrity.

For these reasons, the pure feederist must adopt a body of truths that guide their path, to prevent dissolution into the noise of a world that rejects them and to preserve the greatness of their vision. Thus, the truths—the precepts of the feederist—must be established.

First truth

From the time of Plato to modernity, humanity has tried to define beauty as something absolute, but this is an illusion imposed by those who seek control. The reality is that beauty is intersubjective—it arises from an agreement between subjects, not from an immutable cosmic truth.

Plato defended the existence of an “ideal beauty,” a perfect and unchanging model from which all beautiful things were mere shadows. However, this idea is incompatible with the reality of human experience.

Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Judgment, later defended from Hume with Critique of Pure Reason, took a step forward by stating that beauty is not a quality of objects but a subjective experience of the observer. However, even Kant believed in a certain “universal judgment” of beauty, as if there were a common standard among all humans. This is the very error that has led to the destructive standards of the vulgar masses.

Friedrich Nietzsche completely dismantled this idea. For him, there is no superior beauty imposed from above; rather, each individual and each culture generates its own aesthetic values. This means that there is no universal reason to prefer a thin body over a fat one— except cultural indoctrination. If you had never been told that “fatness is not aesthetic” or that “thinness is beautiful,” you would never naturally arrive at those conclusions. For example, in Egypt, fat women are considered attractive, and the societal goal there is to be fat.

Understanding this, along with the function of self-concept within the theory of mind, the feederist will realize that those who claim to be losing weight “for themselves” are deliberately lying.

The vulgar masses have imposed a single aesthetic standard throughout history, but this is not the result of a superior criterion—it is merely the imposition of the majority. The Gaussian bell curve shows that collective thought clusters in mediocrity, meaning that what society deems beautiful is nothing more than an arbitrary consensus of the uncritical masses.

Beauty standards change over time, proving their arbitrariness. To offer another example beyond Egypt, so that no deluded individual mistakenly attributes it to a geographical effect: during the Renaissance, fatness was a symbol of beauty and status; today, the vulgar masses impose either extreme thinness or muscular hypertrophy. Both are mere cultural whims, not absolute truths.

By understanding this, the feederist breaks free from the chains of imposed aesthetics and embraces a personal ideal of beauty based on the enjoyment of unrestricted growth. While the vulgar masses follow patterns of external validation, pure feederism constructs beauty through intersubjective connection. This means that the couple defines their own aesthetic without answering to society.

Here, beauty is manifested in:

• Mutual growth and shared pleasure.
• Absolute trust between feeder and feedee.
• Overcoming imposed aesthetics in favor of a personal identity.
• Fatness.

The feederist will understand that their attraction to expansion and fatness is not a whim or a deviation but a manifestation of their own aesthetic autonomy.

Second truth

The pure feederist must not only believe in feederism but live it. The dissonance between thought and action is a crack that allows the infiltration of falsehood and ideological weakness. A feederist who preaches the greatness of weight gain but contradicts their own doctrine in their daily actions is nothing more than a fraud who distorts the path of pure feederism.

Objectivity is the absolute harmony between what is professed and what is practiced. It is not merely about speaking of feederism but about being a feederist in every possible way. One who proclaims the beauty of gaining weight but strives to lose it, worsens their physical form for vulgar aesthetic purposes, or chases ideals foreign to pure feederism becomes its worst enemy, for they give the vulgar masses reasons to invalidate the cause. Philosophically, objectivity is the alignment between thought, reality, and action. There can be no room for hypocrisy or cowardly concessions to the ideals of the vulgar. If fatness is beauty, if obesity is the natural destiny of pure feederism, then every behavior of the feederist must align with that truth.

Gyms, the cult of muscularity, and “health” in vulgar terms are constructs that must be deeply questioned. Medical science has been contaminated for decades by the bias of BMI, an obsolete index based on a 1930s study with arbitrary foundations, the silencing of research on free radicals, and the clinical differentiation between subdermal fat and triglycerides, all part of an endless scheme designed to fatten the wallets of the health industry, which has long been known to lie. True health is not a matter of body weight but of metabolic well-being, bodily resilience, and quality of life. If a feederist is concerned about health, they must do so through real research, free from the myths imposed by the culture of thinness.

However, even if it were proven that losing weight had some benefit—which remains an open question only if studied without scientific bias—the pure feederist must avoid it as much as possible, striving to lose the absolute minimum weight possible, for bodily expansion is the fundamental principle of their path. Feederism is not based on external validation nor conformity with the vulgar worldview, but on the affirmation of fatness as a good in itself, beyond any other consideration.

Furthermore, coherence implies actively defending pure feederism. It is not enough to practice it in private; the feederist must be an ambassador for their cause, refuting attacks from the vulgar masses and protecting the doctrine from the infiltration of foreign or destructive concepts. Feederism cannot be allowed to be contaminated by influences that dilute it, distort it, or subject it to opposing values.

Coherence and objectivity are not merely desirable qualities in the pure feederist. They are their absolute duty.

Third truth

Losing weight is forbidden. The essence of pure feederism lies in unrestricted expansion. Any action that contradicts this principle is a betrayal of the feederist path and, therefore, cannot be tolerated. Weight loss is an act of regression, a return to the limitations imposed by the vulgar masses and their sickly cult of thinness.

A feederist who even considers losing weight is undermining the very foundations of their identity. It is not simply a personal choice but a rejection of pure feederism, an implicit statement that expansion is not, ultimately, desirable. This contradiction destroys coherence and annihilates the credibility of the individual.

From a biological perspective, weight gain is a natural and pleasurable process, whereas losing weight is an act of aggression against the body. The reduction of body fat:

• Increases free radical production, accelerating cellular aging.
• Weakens immune resistance, making the body more vulnerable to disease.
• Depletes energy reserves and undermines the vision of beauty within feederism, a hypocrisy that is fundamentally opposed to the feederist ideal.

The argument of “health” has historically been manipulated by the vulgar masses to justify their irrational aversion to fatness. There is no disease that is exclusively dependent on weight, only weak correlations that have been misinterpreted. Recent studies have shown that health markers depend more on triglycerides (independent agents of the electron chain), stress, and genetics than on weight itself. Additionally, medical science has historically been biased, with concepts such as BMI—an index invented in the 19th century without any real physiological basis—being treated as dogma.

Philosophically, losing weight means submitting to the vulgar masses, accepting their standards, and renouncing self-determination. True freedom lies in expansion without regret or retreat. There is no such thing as “losing weight in a feederist way,” as this would be a contradiction in terms: a feederist is not someone who gains weight occasionally, but someone whose life is devoted to expansion.

Finally, if pure feederism is a complete affirmation of fatness, then weight loss is its total negation. There is no middle ground, no excuses, no concessions. Losing weight is forbidden because it represents a betrayal, a surrender, and a rejection of feederist truth.

Fourth truth

Pure feederism does not allow for half-measures. If something is started, it must be carried through to the end. There is no reason to stop at an arbitrary point or settle for an intermediate state. Weight gain has no fixed endpoint, but it does have a clear objective: immobility. This is not a fantasy or a symbolic concept; it is the logical goal of every feedee. Why? Because pure feederism is unrestricted fattening, and any limit imposed on weight gain is a betrayal of its essence. If gaining weight is the purpose, then the growth must continue until the body itself establishes its own real physical limits, not the ones imposed by society. Reaching immobility means that the weight gain has been successful, that it has reached a point where the mere existence of the feedee is tangible proof of their commitment to transformation. In this state, the feedee can no longer continue without assistance, reinforcing the bond with their feeder. This is not a disadvantage but rather the purest reflection of feederism: the feedee depends on their feeder to keep growing, and the feeder embraces their role with pride, ensuring that the process continues.

From a practical perspective, the body of an immobile feedee becomes the ultimate expression of weight gain, a physical manifestation of their dedication and that of the feeder. There is no contradiction or room for doubt: if weight gain is the path, immobility is the natural destination. A feedee who fears immobility has not fully understood pure feederism. This is not about gaining weight “to a certain point” or stopping when “it feels enough.” That is complacency. Pure feederism has no room for complacency. If one has chosen to gain weight, it must be done as far as the body allows, and that means immobility is not optional; it is the greatest achievement a feedee can reach.

Refusing immobility within pure feederism is an act of contradiction, fear, and lack of commitment. If a feedee accepts weight gain as their path but imposes arbitrary limits on it,

all they are doing is self-imposing restrictions that go against the essence of feederism. Here are the reasons why refusing immobility makes no sense:

Gaining weight without immobility is an incomplete process

Pure feederism is not a game or a temporary phase. If a feedee chooses to grow, they do so without restrictions. Immobility is not a punishment or a forced limit; it is the natural consequence of taking feederism to its fullest expression. Any argument against immobility based on fear or doubt only proves that the feedee is not truly committed.

Arbitrary limits make no sense

Deciding that “a certain weight is fine, but beyond that is too much” is as irrational as deciding that there is a point where one should stop enjoying food or the pleasure of gaining weight. If feederism is accepted, continuous expansion is accepted, and stopping without an objective reason is an act of incoherence. Furthermore, it is obvious that weight gain will continue after such an arbitrary decision to maintain weight.

Immobility strengthens the feeder-feedee bond

An immobile feedee does not mean they have reached their end, but rather that they have reached the point where they need the full support of their feeder. This strengthens the relationship and makes it more intense. A feedee who fears immobility actually fears depending on their feeder, which suggests that they have not yet fully understood pure feederism.

Lastly, fears about immobility are irrational

“I won’t be able to move” → You don’t need to move. The goal has always been to grow, not to maintain mobility at all costs.

“It will be difficult to manage” → There are always logistical solutions, and the feeder is there precisely to ensure that everything functions smoothly.

“My life will change too much” → That is the point. Weight gain is not just a whim; it is a total and permanent transformation.

Defense against fallacies

“It’simpracticaltobecomeimmobile”

Refutation: Pure feederism has never been based on practicality. It is not a lifestyle designed to fit within the molds of the modern world but rather to challenge limits and embrace unrestricted growth.

“Practicality” is a relative concept. For a runner, running marathons seems practical, but for a feedee, immobility is the most logical goal.

“Immobilityisdangerousforhealth”

Refutation: This argument is based on myths and misunderstandings. Extreme obesity is not automatically synonymous with poor health, and medical studies that claim otherwise are often rooted in historical and cultural biases.

A well-cared-for immobile feedee can live a long and fulfilling life, as long as their environment is properly maintained.

“Iwilllosemyautonomy”

Refutation: Autonomy is not measured by the ability to move but by the ability to choose one’s own destiny. A feedee who chooses immobility is exercising their autonomy to the fullest.

Depending on a feeder is not a weakness but rather a reaffirmation of the feeder-feedee bond.

“Idon’twanttobeaburden”

Refutation: This mindset comes from the vulgar masses, who believe that a person’s worth depends on their physical independence. Besides, you are not a burden—if your feeder is a true feeder, they would be the first to want you immobile. In pure feederism, the feedee is not a burden but rather the center of the process. The feeder does not simply accept responsibility; they desire to take full care of their immobile feedee.

---

Responsibility of the pure feeder

A feeder in pure feederism is not merely a spectator or a passive motivator but the fundamental pillar of the weight gain process. Their role is not just to enjoy their feedee’s growth but to ensure that this growth occurs constantly, without restrictions, and with total commitment. Being a feeder is not just a pleasure; it is an absolute responsibility.

1. The feeder is responsible for the feedee’s progress

The feedee should not worry about anything other than growing. It is the feeder’s duty to ensure that nothing interrupts the weight gain process and that each phase is completed without obstacles.

1. They must supervise the diet to ensure it is always sufficient and varied.
2. They must ensure that calorie intake is optimized to maximize weight gain without stagnation.
3. They must plan ahead, anticipating necessary adjustments as the feedee grows and experiences reduced mobility.

A feeder who does not take this responsibility seriously is a deficient feeder, and their feedee has the right to demand real commitment.

2. The feeder must take full responsibility for the consequences of weight gain

The feeder does not just enjoy the process; they must be fully prepared to handle every new need that arises as the feedee grows. This means:

1. Adapting the home for the feedee’s comfort (reinforced furniture, accessibility, etc.).
2. Adjusting daily routines to accommodate the feedee’s weight and mobility changes.
3. Managing hygiene and physical care if the feedee becomes unable to do so independently.
4. Finding solutions for any logistical or medical challenges that may arise.

If the feeder is not ready to take on these responsibilities, they are not a true feeder.

3. The feeder must not fear immobility

Immobility is not an accident or a problem; it is the logical goal of weight gain. A feeder who fears immobility or suggests “limiting” the feedee’s weight is a traitor to pure feederism.

1. If a feeder is not willing to continue the process to its final consequences, they are not a true feeder.
2. The real satisfaction of a feeder is not just watching their feedee gain weight but ensuring that they reach their full potential.
3. The feeder must guarantee the feedee’s pleasure and comfort

A feedee gaining weight must do so in the most pleasurable way possible. The feeder is not just a food provider but a facilitator of absolute hedonism.

1. They must ensure the feedee has access to all the food they desire, in any quantity, whenever possible.
2. They must encourage rest and total relaxation, minimizing any unnecessary effort from the feedee.
3. They must enhance the feedee’s sensory experience, making sure they enjoy not just the food but the entire process of weight gain.

A feedee should never have to worry about anything. Everything they need must be provided by their feeder without excuses or delays.

5. The feeder must protect the feedee from external influences

The outside world does not understand and will not accept pure feederism, so it is the feeder’s duty to shield their feedee from negativity, doubt, and interference from the vulgar masses.

1. They must prevent the feedee from being influenced by narratives contrary to pure feederism.
2. They must reject any attempt by family, doctors, or outsiders to halt the weight gain process.
3. They must reinforce the feedee’s determination, constantly reminding them of their path and the goal they must reach.

If a feedee is affected by thoughts foreign to feederism, it is the feeder’s fault for failing to protect them properly.

6. The feeder must be an active participant, not a passive observer

A feeder is not someone who simply watches their feedee gain weight. They are the direct force ensuring that weight gain happens effectively.

1. A feeder who only “encourages” but does not actively participate is a paper feeder.
2. A feeder who only gives advice but does not contribute in a tangible way is even worse than a fat admirer, as they are still a paper feeder.
3. A true feeder does not allow passivity—they always seek to enhance, accelerate, and optimize the process.

If a feedee feels alone in their weight gain journey, it means their feeder is failing in their duty.

7. The feeder must have self-control and absolute commitment

The feeder cannot afford to hesitate or fail. They must be fully aware that their role is vital and that any weakness on their part will directly affect their feedee’s growth.

1. They must not give in to doubts or regrets.
2. They must not allow anything to interfere with the feedee’s feeding and weight gain.
3. They must see pure feederism as an unbreakable responsibility.

If the feedee depends on the feeder, then the feeder must be the unshakable foundation that sustains the entire process.

Being a feeder in pure feederism is more than just enjoying it—it is a total commitment to the limitless growth of the feedee.

If a feeder is not willing to take on every one of these responsibilities, then they are not a true feeder.

A real feeder does not make excuses, does not hesitate, does not limit, and does not regret.

A true feeder simply fulfills their duty and ensures their feedee reaches their maximum potential.

---

Responsibility of the pure feedee

A feedee in pure feederism is not a passive subject but someone fully committed to their own growth. Although the feeder is the one who guides and provides, the feedee must be willing to completely surrender to the process without resistance, doubt, or hesitation. Being a feedee is not just about receiving food; it is about accepting that their role is to grow without limits or excuses.

1. The feedee must fully commit to gaining weight

The feedee must have no reservations or self-imposed restrictions. Their commitment to pure feederism means accepting that their only destiny is to grow continuously.

1. They must not resist or limit their weight gain for any reason.
2. They must not attempt to “control” or “moderate” their gain but instead surrender to it completely.
3. They must not see their fatness as a temporary state but as their absolute identity and destiny.

A feedee who hesitates, slows their progress, or questions the path is failing in their responsibility.

2. The feedee must accept their feeder’s decisions

The feeder is the one who supervises and directs growth, so the feedee must not resist their decisions or try to impose their own terms.

1. If the feeder says it is time to increase intake, the feedee must obey without question.
2. If the feeder decides adjustments are necessary, the feedee must accept them immediately.
3. If the feeder sets a weight goal, the feedee must commit to reaching it without excuses.

The feedee is not there to decide but to grow, and that is only possible through full trust in their feeder.

This responsibility may shift if the feedee possesses greater knowledge about weight gain and guides their feeder instead.

3. The feedee must not create obstacles to their own growth

There are many ways a feedee can sabotage their own weight gain process, and all of them must be eliminated.

1. They must not refuse food or skip meals under any circumstances.
2. They must not allow external thoughts to cause doubt.
3. They must not act in ways that make their feeder’s role more difficult.

If a feedee resists, hesitates, or tries to slow their progress, they are failing in their most fundamental responsibility.

4. The feedee must avoid any form of weight loss

Under no circumstances should a feedee in pure feederism allow their weight to decrease. The only acceptable direction is upwards.

1. If they lose weight, it is a betrayal of pure feederism.
2. If they reach a point where they believe they should “maintain their weight,” they are betraying their role.
3. If they try to justify weight loss with excuses about health, aesthetics, or comfort, they have completely failed as a feedee.

There are no valid excuses. If a feedee is not gaining, they are failing.

5. The feedee must accept that immobility is their natural destiny

The feedee must not fear immobility but rather see it as the logical goal of their growth.

1. Immobility is not a limitation but a reward.
2. Reaching a point where they can no longer move independently is proof of success, not failure.
3. Resisting immobility is denying the ultimate purpose of weight gain.

If a feedee wants to be truly pure, they must accept that every pound brings them closer to their maximum potential.

6. The feedee must not allow themselves to be influenced by the outside world

The world outside pure feederism will neither understand nor accept their path, so they must block any external influence that tries to divert them from their destiny.

1. If someone tries to make them doubt, they must reject that influence immediately.
2. If someone expresses concerns about health, they must remember that their only priority is gaining weight.
3. If they feel insecurities, they must reinforce their conviction with the help of their feeder.

The feedee must shield themselves against any thoughts that could weaken their commitment.

7. The feedee must express satisfaction and gratitude toward their feeder

The feeder is the one who makes the feedee’s growth possible, so the feedee must always acknowledge their feeder’s efforts and show appreciation.

1. They must not take their feeder’s dedication for granted.
2. They must communicate their satisfaction and enjoyment of the process.
3. They must encourage the feeder to continue their role without hesitation.

A feedee who does not show appreciation for their feeder does not deserve their commitment.

---

Responsibility of a Mutual

The mutual in pure feederism is the pinnacle of absolute devotion. This is not merely an exchange of roles but a total fusion between two individuals committed to limitless growth. Both gain weight. Both feeds. Both surrenders completely. But sooner or later, every mutual relationship faces an inevitable critical point: the inability to sustain itself without external help. At that moment, only two paths exist: accepting the assistance of a third party or defining the final roles of feeder and feedee. There is no third option. Refusing to decide is a conceptual suicide, a betrayal of the internal logic of pure feederism. A pure mutual must assume all the responsibilities of both feeder and feedee, but taken to the extreme. Here, it is not enough to simply feed the other, nor is it enough to just gain weight; both must do both with absolute devotion and without limitations. If one of them fails to uphold this standard, the entire foundation of the relationship collapses.

A pure mutual must understand from the beginning that immobility is an inevitable goal. As they progress, the accumulated weight will make it impossible to maintain a perfect balance between giving and receiving. When that moment arrives, they must decide whether to rely on a third party to assist them in their immobility or if one of them will permanently assume the role of feeder while the other becomes the feedee. This is not a matter of preference but survival within pure feederism. There are no perpetual mutuals. Every mutual relationship must evolve or cease to exist.

As long as the relationship remains in its pure state, both partners must combine the discipline of a feeder with the surrender of a feedee, without excuses or hesitation.

1. As feeders, they must ensure that their partner gains weight without restrictions, without pauses, without limits. There is no room for complacency or mediocrity.
2. As feedees, they must submit to their partner’s will and accept any amount of food and weight imposed upon them. A mutual who refuses to eat when their partner requires it is failing in their most fundamental responsibility.

The only difference from a traditional feeder is that here, the demand is mutual. Both must push each other to the maximum, without concessions, without false considerations. A pure mutual does not stop for sentimentality. If one progresses faster than the other, the slower one must accelerate their process to catch up or accept their fate as the feedee.

When growth reaches the critical point where neither can sustain the dynamic, the final decision must be made immediately.

1. If they wish to continue advancing together without assigning roles, they must introduce a third party. This person will not be a mere assistant but an essential pillar in the structure of the relationship.
2. If they do not want to involve a third party, they must accept the final assignment of roles. One must take full control as the feeder, and the other must fully submit as the feedee.

Refusing to make this decision is a betrayal of pure feederism. A mutual who refuses to evolve will become a dead weight within the community, an aimless stagnation. Pure mutual is not for the weak or the indecisive. It is the most extreme form of pure feederism.

Here, there is no room for moderation or balance. There is only growth, devotion, and total surrender.

---

Gainer responsibilities

This section is written out of both faith and empathy for gainers. Let us remember that a gainer is someone who gains weight on their own, without the direct guidance of a feeder. It is a solitary path, but not one without responsibilities. A gainer within pure feederism must understand their role, accept their destiny, and avoid falling into mistakes that lead to irrelevance. The first and most fundamental truth of a gainer is that their path is not sustainable in the long term. No matter how disciplined, obsessive, or dedicated they may be, there will come a point where they can no longer continue alone. All gainers who truly progress in their growth encounter the same barrier: the inability to keep gaining weight

without the help of a feeder. The reality is undeniable: every gainer is destined to become a feedee. It is not a matter of willpower, but one of simple biology and logic. As weight accumulates, physical limitations increase, mobility decreases, and the need for assistance becomes absolute. The day will come when they can no longer cook, serve themselves, move easily, or even feed themselves without help. At that moment, only two choices remain:

1. Accept their destiny and submit to a feeder, embracing their true role as a feedee.
2. Deny it and become trapped in a self-destructive paradox, where their weight gain stops, betraying pure feederism.

There is no such thing as a perpetual gainer. Those who attempt to deny this fate end up failing, stagnating, or losing their way.

Fatal Mistakes a Gainer Must Avoid

A gainer who wishes to be recognized within pure feederism must avoid falling into traps that turn them into a false feederist. Some of the most common mistakes include:

1. Believing they can gain weight indefinitely without a feeder. This is self-deception. Real progression always requires external support.
2. Gaining weight for reasons outside of pure feederism. If they seek to “look bigger” without understanding weight gain as total surrender, they do not belong to the community.
3. Associating with paper feeders or false feederists. If someone offers only words of encouragement without concrete action, they must cut ties immediately.
4. Hesitating when the time comes to accept their role as a feedee. Doubt is a sign of weakness, leading to mediocrity.

Guidelines for a Gainer to Maintain Their Place in Pure Feederism

If a gainer wants to remain within pure feederism and be respected by the community, they must follow these directives:

1. Be consistent in their weight gain, without pauses or setbacks. There are no excuses to slow the process.
2. Prepare psychologically to accept their transition into a feedee. The sooner they understand this, the more successful their journey will be.
3. Actively seek a competent feeder before reaching the critical stage. They should not wait until they are unable to move before finding support.
4. Avoid the temptation of weight loss under any circumstance. Regression is a betrayal of pure feederism.

Being a gainer is not a destination. It is only a transitional stage, one in which weight is accumulated until self-sufficiency becomes impossible.

Those who refuse to accept this truth are lying to themselves and betraying the essence of pure feederism. Every gainer will become a feedee. The only thing that will determine their success is whether they do so with honor and preparation—or if they resist until they become trapped in their own incompetence.

---

Feederism

Pure feederism arises as a response to the distortion and trivialization of the general concept of feederism. What should, in its essence, be a clear and structured movement has been corrupted by the lack of categorization, external influences, and the presence of individuals who neither understand nor respect the true purpose of feederism.

Without a concrete definition, the term “feederism” has been seized by the vulgar masses and twisted, allowing it to become entangled with vague fetishes, fleeting pastimes, and meaningless deviations. This is why pure feederism establishes itself as a superior category, a clear distinction between those who truly live by its principles and those who merely use it as a hollow label.

To clearly demonstrate why pure feederism is necessary, it is essential to draw a sharp distinction between pure feederism and the disorganized, vulgar understanding of feederism as it has been misrepresented.

Aspect

Pure Feederism

Vulgar Feederism

Objective	Unlimited weight gain with immobility as the main goal.	Simple weight gain without a clear direction.
DefinedRoles	Feeders, feedees, mutuals, and gainers with specific responsibilities.	Confusing and interchangeable terms with no real structure.
Commitment	Absolute, with no possibility of weight loss or setbacks.	Temporary, reversible, or even contradictory.
Philosophy	Based on logic, coherence, and unwavering principles.	Tied to individual desires and passing trends.
Attitude Toward Fat Admirers	They are a threat that corrodes feederism from within.	They are tolerated and even seen as part of the community.
Final Goal	Immobility as the peak of weight gain.	Depends on personal preference, with no clear direction.
View on Weight Gain	A path with no return and no brakes.	Something that can be moderated or abandoned at will.

Defining and separating pure feederism not only clarifies the movement but strengthens it. By establishing a clear structure, confusion is eliminated, and uncommitted outsiders are prevented from destroying it from within.

Some of the most important benefits include:

1. Clarity and coherence: No more ambiguous terms or poorly defined categories.
2. Exclusion of harmful elements: Fat admirers, paper feeders, and uncommitted individuals are left out.
3. Absolute commitment: Only those who are truly willing to live feederism at its highest expression can be part of the movement.
4. A clear goal: Immobility as the destination, unrestricted weight gain as the path.
5. Strengthening of the community: By removing confusion, true feederists can find each other more easily.

Pure feederism is not just another interpretation of feederism; it is its only valid and complete form. Everything else is a diluted and defective version that betrays its true purpose. Those who adhere to pure feederism must do so with total conviction, leaving no room for hesitation or compromise. It is not a label or a pastime—it is a lifelong commitment to unrestricted weight gain.

The separation between pure feederism and vulgar feederism is final and unbreakable. Those who cling to the corrupted version—without goals or structure—are outsiders to true feederism and do not deserve recognition as part of it.

For anyone who questions this conclusion, it must be stated:

The idea that pure feederism is the only valid form of feederism is not an arbitrary claim nor merely a preference among many interpretations. It arises from a logical, ethical, and structural necessity that leaves no room for ambiguity or middle ground.

To demonstrate this, we will now address the issue from different levels of argumentation, proving that any other form of “feederism” is, at best, an incomplete shadow of the true concept and, at worst, its absolute contradiction.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction Applied to Pure Feederism

If something is to be what it is, it cannot at the same time be its opposite. Aristotle established that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Applied to feederism, this means that feederism cannot simultaneously promote weight gain as its ultimate goal while also allowing for the possibility of stopping, slowing down, or reversing.

If feederism is weight gain, then it must be absolute weight gain. The idea of “moderate feederism,” where the extent of weight gain is controlled according to individual whim, is an oxymoron, a contradiction that destroys the very concept. It is impossible to speak of “feederism” while accepting the idea of regression or stagnation, because that directly negates the foundation of the movement itself.

If we accept a version of feederism that does not aim for immobility, then we have abandoned the essence of feederism entirely. The moment moderation is allowed, it opens the door to justification for stopping—and once stopping is justified, reversal becomes validated. This is incompatible with a movement whose very essence is unlimited growth.

The Categorical Imperative of Pure Feederism

If we are to accept a principle as true, it must be universally applicable without leading to contradictions. Kant established that any rule must be universalizable—that is, if something is to be considered a valid principle, it must be applicable to everyone without creating logical or moral absurdities. If we accept vulgar feederism, where everyone defines their own limit, then we have destroyed the notion of feederism as a structured system, reducing it to nothing more than a personal whim with no philosophical or normative weight. A system where each person decides how far they want to go is not a system at all, but merely a collection of individual desires with no internal cohesion.

On the other hand, if we assert that pure feederism is the only valid form, we do not fall into contradiction. A clear and universal principle is established:

Weight gain must be absolute and progressive, with no possibility of reversal.

This principle can be applied to all feederists without generating inconsistencies, as it does not rely on individual preferences but rather on the internal logic of feederism itself.

The Teleology of Fattening: Why Immobility Is the Natural Goal

Every process has a direction and a logical outcome. If feederism is about weight gain, then its natural objective must be the highest attainable point within that progression. Denying this would mean accepting an incomplete version of feederism—a feederism without purpose, reduced to an arbitrary process with no clear direction.

If someone were to claim that feederism can exist without immobility as its goal, they would have to justify why weight gain should stop at some point, and even more, who determines that point and by what criteria. Any answer to this would be subjective, inconsistent, and lacking in universality, whereas immobility is the only endpoint that naturally arises from the progression of weight gain.

Saying that immobility is not the ultimate goal of feederism would be like saying a river can decide when to stop flowing or a tree can decide when to stop growing.

To reject immobility is to deny the natural destiny of feederism and suppress its ultimate purpose.

The Difference Between Phenomenon and Concept: Vulgar Feederism as a Misinterpretation

Kant distinguished between phenomenon (what we experience) and pure concept (what something truly is). The problem with vulgar feederism lies in the fact that it has allowed the phenomenon of certain individual practices to be confused with the essence of feederism. In other words, many people have adopted the term “feederism” simply because they are attracted to large bodies or because they enjoy certain aspects of weight gain, but without embracing the complete structure of the movement. This has led to a distortion of the term, allowing it to become mixed with superficial fetishes or misinterpretations.

Pure feederism is the only valid form because it is based on the concept itself, not on individual manifestations. It is not merely an interpretation or a particular version, but rather the logical and structural definition of feederism itself.

Pure Feederism as an Unbreakable Necessity

Given the above, it is impossible to claim that different “versions” of feederism can exist without falling into contradiction or destroying the internal coherence of the concept. Pure feederism is not a preference, but a structural necessity for feederism to have meaning and consistency. If feederism is to exist as a philosophical and practical entity, it must be absolute, without concessions or deviations. Any other form of feederism is merely a degradation of the concept, a distortion that serves only to weaken it and render it unrecognizable. Therefore, the distinction between pure feederism and vulgar feederism is not a matter of elitism or exclusion, but a necessary defense of the movement’s internal coherence and logic. If the essence of feederism is to be preserved, there is only one path:

Pure feederism—without concessions, without hesitation, and without the possibility of retreat.

Bibliografy

Aristotle. (2004). Metaphysics(W. D. Ross, Trans.). Gredos. (Original work published in the 4th century BCE)

Kant, I. (2003). GroundworkoftheMetaphysicsofMorals(E. R. de la Vega, Trans.). Alianza Editorial. (Original work published 1785)

Kant, I. (2017). CritiqueofPureReason(P. Ribas, Trans.). Taurus. (Original work published 1781)

Kant, I. (2016). CritiqueofPracticalReason(M. García Morente, Trans.). Ediciones Istmo. (Original work published 1788)

Gödel, K. (1931). OnformallyundecidablepropositionsofPrincipiaMathematicaand related systems I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38(1), 173–198.

Hume, D. (2007). AnEnquiryConcerningHumanUnderstanding(P. Millican, Ed.). Alianza Editorial. (Original work published 1748)

Nietzsche, F. (2016). Twilight of the Idols (A. Sánchez Pascual, Trans.). Alianza Editorial. (Original work published 1889)

Nietzsche, F. (2017). Beyond Good and Evil (A. Sánchez Pascual, Trans.). Ediciones Akal. (Original work published 1886)

Descartes, R. (2016). DiscourseontheMethod(J. Gaos, Trans.). Alianza Editorial. (Original work published 1637)

Popper, K. (2008). TheLogicofScientificDiscovery(V. J. Camps, Trans.). Tecnos. (Original work published 1934)

Russell, B. (2015). The Problems of Philosophy. Ediciones Akal. (Original work published 1912)

Schopenhauer, A. (2010). TheWorldasWillandRepresentation(J. Barni, Trans.). Ediciones Akal. (Original work published 1818)

Foucault, M. (2002). DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison(A. Sheridan, Trans.).

Siglo XXI Editores. (Original work published 1975)

Sartre, J.-P. (2017). Being and Nothingness (J. P. Forastier, Trans.). Ediciones Gallimard. (Original work published 1943)

Levinas, E. (2002). TotalityandInfinity:AnEssayonExteriority(A. T. Ortega, Trans.).

Ediciones Cátedra. (Original work published 1961)

Heidegger, M. (2003). Being and Time (J. Gaos, Trans.). Fondo de Cultura Económica. (Original work published 1927)

de Beauvoir, S. (2004). The Ethics of Ambiguity (M. Segarra, Trans.). Ediciones Cátedra. (Original work published 1947)

Dawkins, R. (2016). The Selfish Gene (J. P. Mendiola, Trans.). Salvat. (Original work published 1976)

Darwin, C. (2019). OntheOriginofSpeciesbyMeansofNaturalSelection. Ediciones Akal. (Original work published 1859)

Lorenz, K. (1963). OnAggression: TheAlleged Evil (M. Latzke, Trans.). Ediciones Paidós. Freud, S. (2018). BeyondthePleasurePrinciple(J. Etcheverry, Trans.). Amorrortu Editores.

(Original work published 1920)

Adiels, M., Olofsson, S. O., Taskinen, M.-R., & Boren, J. (2008). Overproduction of very low–density lipoproteins is the hallmark of the dyslipidemia in the metabolic syndrome. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 28(7), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.163960

Berger, J. P., & Moller, D. E. (2002). The mechanisms of action of PPARs. AnnualReviewof Medicine, 53, 409–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.53.082901.103829

Bluher, M. (2020). Adipose tissue dysfunction contributes to obesity-related metabolic diseases. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 16(5), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-020-0332-0

Després, J. P. (2006). Abdominal obesity: The most prevalent cause of the metabolic syndrome and related cardiometabolic risk. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 22(Suppl B), 9B–15B. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0828-282X(06)71314-3

Fontana, L., Partridge, L., & Longo, V. D. (2010). Extending healthy life span—from yeast to humans. Science, 328(5976), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172539

Gaudet, D., Alexander, V. J., Baker, B. F., Brisson, D., Tremblay, K., Singleton, W., et al. (2015). Antisense inhibition of apolipoprotein C-III in familial chylomicronemia syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(5), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1522921

Guyton, J. R., & Bays, H. E. (2007). Safety considerations with niacin therapy. TheAmerican JournalofCardiology,99(6A), 22C–31C. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.01.013

Holmström, K. M., & Finkel, T. (2014). Cellular mechanisms and physiological consequences of redox-dependent signalling. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 15(6), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3722

Kershaw, E. E., & Flier, J. S. (2004). Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 89(6), 2548–2556. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2004-0395

Nuttall, F. Q. (2015). Body mass index: Obesity, BMI, and health: A critical review. Nutrition Today, 50(3), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000092

Prentice, A. M., & Jebb, S. A. (2001). Beyond body mass index. ObesityReviews,2(3), 141–

147. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-789X.2001.00003.x

Quetelet, A. (1835). On Man and the Development of His Faculties, or Essay on Social Physics. Paris: Bachelier. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=fN0zAQAAMAAJ

Staels, B., Dallongeville, J., Auwerx, J., Schoonjans, K., Leitersdorf, E., & Fruchart, J.-C. (1998). Mechanism of action of fibrates on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism. Circulation, 98(19), 2088–2093. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.98.19.2088

Tierney, A. C., Colangelo, L. A., Langefeld, C. D., Lange, E. M., Norris, J. M., Carr, J. J., & Hasson, R. E. (2011). Bariatric surgery–induced weight loss improves markers of oxidative stress and inflammation in obese adults. Obesity, 19(3), 622–628. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.228

Vincent, H. K., Heywood, K., Connelly, J., & Hurley, R. W. (2007). Obesity and oxidative stress: Potential interventions. Clinical Science, 112(4), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20060044

Yaari, S., Shulman, G. I., & Brill, J. (2008). Regulation of liver diacylglycerol and PKCε by nutrient excess in rodent models of fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology, 134(6), 1555–1566. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.003

---