Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
LumenPraebeo wrote: Another interesting thing I want to point out, why aren't there any rich people out there who are fat?
Uh, what? There are plenty of rich, fat people. Heck, look at Gabe Newell. Dude can probably fill a swimming pool with hundred dollar bills, and he is still an obese man.
LumenPraebeo wrote: Another interesting thing I want to point out, why aren't there any rich people out there who are fat?
Uh, what? There are plenty of rich, fat people. Heck, look at Gabe Newell. Dude can probably fill a swimming pool with hundred dollar bills, and he is still an obese man.
Michael Moore.
Not to mention a plethora of Hollywood actors/actresses.
LumenPraebeo wrote: Another interesting thing I want to point out, why aren't there any rich people out there who are fat?
Uh, what? There are plenty of rich, fat people. Heck, look at Gabe Newell. Dude can probably fill a swimming pool with hundred dollar bills, and he is still an obese man.
Michael Moore.
Not to mention a plethora of Hollywood actors/actresses.
LumenPraebeo wrote: Another interesting thing I want to point out, why aren't there any rich people out there who are fat?
Uh, what? There are plenty of rich, fat people. Heck, look at Gabe Newell. Dude can probably fill a swimming pool with hundred dollar bills, and he is still an obese man.
Michael Moore.
He was talking about PEOPLE, not diabolic demon minions from the nether regions of the various planes of existence
LumenPraebeo wrote: Another interesting thing I want to point out, why aren't there any rich people out there who are fat?
Uh, what? There are plenty of rich, fat people. Heck, look at Gabe Newell. Dude can probably fill a swimming pool with hundred dollar bills, and he is still an obese man.
Michael Moore.
He was talking about PEOPLE, not diabolic demon minions from the nether regions of the various planes of existence
LOL
2014/07/25 17:05:24
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Bullockist wrote: Over here it is way more expensive to eat fast food* than buy groceries. If someone here tells me it's cheaper to buy fast food my brain explodes from stupidity retention.
I dunno where guys get the notion... but here in the US it's the same as what you're experiencing...
It's not so much actual 'fast food' eaten out, it's the junk food eaten at home that is the significant factor (that is, foods high in fat, salt, and 'empty calories').
E.g. you're a minimum wager with 2 mouths to feed, do you go for one meal's worth of healthy stir fry at $2 per portion, or do you go for 10 packets of high-salt, high-calorie, low in pretty much everything else your body needs, instant noodles at 20cents a portion?
It sounds wierd, but the closer you are the breadline the more likely you are to be obese, not from too many burger kings, but because the econo-burgers your eating at home are just so damn unhealthy, and they are unhealthy because they are cheap.
Also the prices of fresh fruits and vegetable as well as the price of lean meats like chicken have risen steadily (I think there was a drought in California).
Also assumes people have living conditions which can support buying a load of cheaper ingredients, storing them, preparing them and cooking them.
Lots of low-income people have a bedroom or efficiency which makes that 'cheaper to buy groceries' literally impossible to prepare.
The "It is cheaper to buy groceries than to eat fast food" is often said from someone's fully equipped kitchen with a fullsized fridge, a 5 burner stove with double oven and a full set of cooking utensils, pots, pans, and other equipment like a blender and such.
It is very hard to cook inexpensive food when you have a mini-fridge and a hotplate with no place to prepare food and no tools to do food prep with.
ARse!
a mini fridge and a hotplate can do if you want to eat asian. rice 50% of the meal, cooked beforehand. (hell I'm even working off one power point) soak all inrgedients needed the night before(that need soaking) , add fresh and frozen as you will, fry fast.
asian food is made to be cooked in a situation you describe.
you can get a hell of a lot of meals asian style from dried ingredients. from fish to vegetables to grains to meat.
all you need is a wok and a wooden thing to manipulate wok and towels to wipe the wok.
In 95% of the cases, I think you are correct. However I do believe some people's options are very much restricted by poverty.
they arent looking hard enough, see above post.
it can take 10 mins to cook, you know, actually having vitamins. after you finish the last meal you rinse the wok by cooking rice in it.
this gak isn't hard, cheaper and better than any fast food...and don't get me started on asian broths/noodles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/25 17:15:59
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2014/07/25 17:24:55
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Bullockist wrote: Is it really cheaper to eat fast food in the US that doesn't make you hungry before groceries would?
It's not just the money, it's the time. If you're poor and struggling to get enough food to eat you're probably also busy (working multiple jobs, bus travel between jobs, taking care of kids, etc), so you can't afford to spend a lot of time finding the perfect cheap grocery meal and cooking it. So the real comparison becomes fast food vs. groceries you can throw in the microwave, and fast food tends to win.
And also remember that grocery store access can be a problem in some poorer areas. So now you're comparing fast food to whatever you can get at the gas station or similar store.
riiiiiiight,
because driving to, and waiting in line at the mc donalds or other fast food join 3 times a day takes up more time then driving to the market once every week or so...
If you are sitting at home not doing anything then yes, driving to McDonalds or other fast food joints 3 times a day takes up more time than driving to the market once every week or so,
Or, you know, you could actually talk reality for a lot of people.
A) Fast food places are everywhere, but grocery stores are not.
B) If you are already out driving (to/from work, taking/picking the kids up from school) then going to a fast food joint doesn't take any additional time other than the 5 minutes you spend waiting on them to hand you your food.
C) If you are one of the many working poor, then finding a time to actually do a true shopping trip can be difficult.
Personal example of these points for me (not a problem for me, but just to illustrate the point):
A) the closest grocery store to me is 5 miles from my house. So in those 5 miles I have the choice of: 1 Grocery Store or 1 CVS Pharmacy, 1 Dollar General (full of unhealthy food), 11 Gas Stations, or 20something fast food places that are all closer to me.
B) My commute to work is 17 miles. On that trip I pass 1 grocery store (the one that is 5 miles from me). On the same trip I pass 9 gas stations with food options and 10 fast food places. It adds 5 minutes to my commute to stop at any of them.
C) 15 minutes a day for fast food every day of the week = 1.75 hours a week. I can usually do my grocery shopping in 1.5 hours (when I include the drive). So I would only save 15 minutes a week by doing my grocery shopping all at once. For many finding a 2 hour stretch to actually shop is the main problem. It is easier to find 15 minutes each day to stop on the way somewhere than it is to find a big block of time each week to shop everything at once. And if you do your shopping each week you still don't get the other 15 minutes back anyway because you will spend that (or more) cooking food.
And it is only one shopping trip a week IF you have a car to begin with. Good luck doing all the shopping for the week on a single day if you rely on public transportation.
None of that is a problem for me anymore. But it's a real problem for many, and pretending that it's not is just silly.
2014/07/25 17:26:09
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Bullockist wrote: Over here it is way more expensive to eat fast food* than buy groceries. If someone here tells me it's cheaper to buy fast food my brain explodes from stupidity retention.
I dunno where guys get the notion... but here in the US it's the same as what you're experiencing...
It's not so much actual 'fast food' eaten out, it's the junk food eaten at home that is the significant factor (that is, foods high in fat, salt, and 'empty calories').
E.g. you're a minimum wager with 2 mouths to feed, do you go for one meal's worth of healthy stir fry at $2 per portion, or do you go for 10 packets of high-salt, high-calorie, low in pretty much everything else your body needs, instant noodles at 20cents a portion?
It sounds wierd, but the closer you are the breadline the more likely you are to be obese, not from too many burger kings, but because the econo-burgers your eating at home are just so damn unhealthy, and they are unhealthy because they are cheap.
Also the prices of fresh fruits and vegetable as well as the price of lean meats like chicken have risen steadily (I think there was a drought in California).
Also assumes people have living conditions which can support buying a load of cheaper ingredients, storing them, preparing them and cooking them.
Lots of low-income people have a bedroom or efficiency which makes that 'cheaper to buy groceries' literally impossible to prepare.
The "It is cheaper to buy groceries than to eat fast food" is often said from someone's fully equipped kitchen with a fullsized fridge, a 5 burner stove with double oven and a full set of cooking utensils, pots, pans, and other equipment like a blender and such.
It is very hard to cook inexpensive food when you have a mini-fridge and a hotplate with no place to prepare food and no tools to do food prep with.
ARse!
a mini fridge and a hotplate can do if you want to eat asian. rice 50% of the meal, cooked beforehand. (hell I'm even working off one power point) soak all inrgedients needed the night before(that need soaking) , add fresh and frozen as you will, fry fast.
asian food is made to be cooked in a situation you describe.
you can get a hell of a lot of meals asian style from dried ingredients. from fish to vegetables to grains to meat.
all you need is a wok and a wooden thing to manipulate wok and towels to wipe the wok.
In 95% of the cases, I think you are correct. However I do believe some people's options are very much restricted by poverty.
they arent looking hard enough, see above post.
it can take 10 mins to cook, you know, actually having vitamins. after you finish the last meal you rinse the wok by cooking rice in it.
this gak isn't hard, cheaper and better than any fast food...and don't get me started on asian broths/noodles.
I don't claim to be an expert on the issue, I just have a hard time putting people down.
If you are sitting at home not doing anything then yes, driving to McDonalds or other fast food joints 3 times a day takes up more time than driving to the market once every week or so,
Or, you know, you could actually talk reality for a lot of people.
A) Fast food places are everywhere, but grocery stores are not.
B) If you are already out driving (to/from work, taking/picking the kids up from school) then going to a fast food joint doesn't take any additional time other than the 5 minutes you spend waiting on them to hand you your food.
C) If you are one of the many working poor, then finding a time to actually do a true shopping trip can be difficult.
if that was true D-usa,
then why isnt obesity a problem limited to the poor?
its very much not isolated to the poor.
also, your examples all list CHOICES people make (not to mention, you totally, insultingly, handwaive over my own personal experiance with poverty being the "reality" behind my assertions) as my experiance with poverty showed me very clearly that buying and making healthy food was:
cheaper, faster, and better for me... it took SLIGHTLY more EFFORT (not time) in that I would plan out a weeks worth of meals and then shop for them, but the time involved was the same/less then for fast food, and the $ involved was WAY less.
so stop pretending that fast food is cheaper, faster when it just is not.
if you are too lazy to make one trip to that market 5 km away each week, but find the time to make 21 trips a week to fast food places, thats a CHOICE and its on you.
its far more work/time/effort as well, and its far more money to go to fast food places that often. it takes just as long to wait in line as it does to cook stuff.
most of your "reasons why its totally ok to eat poorly" are that it is "easier", which is not a proven point, but lets be nice, and assume you are correct that it is "easier" to eat bad food.
so what? dont make the EASY choice... make the hard CHOICE... its a CHOICE... its easier to smoke then to quit, its easier to lay on the couch then to go for a run, its easier to play video games and get fast food then to spend that time shopping and preparing healthy meals for your kids...
Maybe if these people stopped making all the "easiest" choices and actually made the "correct but slightly harder" choice it would get better,
it hardly takes the responsability away from someone making bad choices when you simply assert that "yeah, they are making bad choices, but hey, its the easy way out, so how can you blame em?
also, despite your entitled attitude, cars are 100% NOT required for shopping. there are these magical things called buses that also have the ability to locomote from place to place while carrying you and your groceries.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/25 17:36:16
also, despite your entitled attitude, cars are 100% NOT required for shopping. there are these magical things called buses that also have the ability to locomote from place to place while carrying you and your groceries.
I think this greatly depends on the grocery shopping habits of people as well.... For myself, if I were in the position where I needed to use public transport in order to transport my groceries home, I'd need to be shopping every 2-3 days, as opposed to once a week as I do now, for my family of 4.
also, despite your entitled attitude, cars are 100% NOT required for shopping. there are these magical things called buses that also have the ability to locomote from place to place while carrying you and your groceries.
"I have never been outside of a population center."
also, despite your entitled attitude, cars are 100% NOT required for shopping. there are these magical things called buses that also have the ability to locomote from place to place while carrying you and your groceries.
I think this greatly depends on the grocery shopping habits of people as well.... For myself, if I were in the position where I needed to use public transport in order to transport my groceries home, I'd need to be shopping every 2-3 days, as opposed to once a week as I do now, for my family of 4.
I frequently see elderly ladies, grocery shopping on the bus, alone, with a weeks worth of groceries in their "trolly carts".... im sure young able bodied people can do it as well..
my mother, single mother of 2, brought us kids to the market, took the bus home, and we all managed to get a weeks worth of food just fine... I could pull lots of groceries in my cart if I needed to.
im not saying its as easy as throwing it into your trunk, and jetting off but its 100% doable, takes only a bit more/time/effort and cheaper then car ownership by FAR.
also, despite your entitled attitude, cars are 100% NOT required for shopping. there are these magical things called buses that also have the ability to locomote from place to place while carrying you and your groceries.
"I have never been outside of a population center."
what kind of person can afford an acreage in the middle of no where, but not a vehicle? we are talking about the POORest of the poor, in suburban "food deserts" in the middle of cities...
also, what magical land do you live in where someone in the middle of no where, magically cannot get to markets, but has a mc donalds out in the middle of no where? do they have mc donalds right on the farm now?
please, explain why all the rich people are fat too if its all poverties fault that people are fat, and no one is responsable for their own eating habits?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/25 17:47:08
2014/07/25 17:49:50
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Bullockist wrote: Is it really cheaper to eat fast food in the US that doesn't make you hungry before groceries would?
It's not just the money, it's the time. If you're poor and struggling to get enough food to eat you're probably also busy (working multiple jobs, bus travel between jobs, taking care of kids, etc), so you can't afford to spend a lot of time finding the perfect cheap grocery meal and cooking it. So the real comparison becomes fast food vs. groceries you can throw in the microwave, and fast food tends to win.
And also remember that grocery store access can be a problem in some poorer areas. So now you're comparing fast food to whatever you can get at the gas station or similar store.
riiiiiiight,
because driving to, and waiting in line at the mc donalds or other fast food join 3 times a day takes up more time then driving to the market once every week or so...
If you are sitting at home not doing anything then yes, driving to McDonalds or other fast food joints 3 times a day takes up more time than driving to the market once every week or so,
Or, you know, you could actually talk reality for a lot of people.
A) Fast food places are everywhere, but grocery stores are not.
B) If you are already out driving (to/from work, taking/picking the kids up from school) then going to a fast food joint doesn't take any additional time other than the 5 minutes you spend waiting on them to hand you your food.
C) If you are one of the many working poor, then finding a time to actually do a true shopping trip can be difficult.
Personal example of these points for me (not a problem for me, but just to illustrate the point):
A) the closest grocery store to me is 5 miles from my house. So in those 5 miles I have the choice of: 1 Grocery Store or 1 CVS Pharmacy, 1 Dollar General (full of unhealthy food), 11 Gas Stations, or 20something fast food places that are all closer to me.
B) My commute to work is 17 miles. On that trip I pass 1 grocery store (the one that is 5 miles from me). On the same trip I pass 9 gas stations with food options and 10 fast food places. It adds 5 minutes to my commute to stop at any of them.
C) 15 minutes a day for fast food every day of the week = 1.75 hours a week. I can usually do my grocery shopping in 1.5 hours (when I include the drive). So I would only save 15 minutes a week by doing my grocery shopping all at once. For many finding a 2 hour stretch to actually shop is the main problem. It is easier to find 15 minutes each day to stop on the way somewhere than it is to find a big block of time each week to shop everything at once. And if you do your shopping each week you still don't get the other 15 minutes back anyway because you will spend that (or more) cooking food.
And it is only one shopping trip a week IF you have a car to begin with. Good luck doing all the shopping for the week on a single day if you rely on public transportation.
None of that is a problem for me anymore. But it's a real problem for many, and pretending that it's not is just silly.
I work 52 Km away from my house as the crow flies. I travel by public transport .my day is about 13 and a half hours round trip.I do a 15 minute shop every day (depending on what my backpack can take), if I had a car it would be way easier, yes, even if I was doing double shifts.You may not save time that you can measure from eating healthy, but the benefit you get from healthy food in effectiveness can not be measured.
Eating healthy is easy, eating gak is perceived as easy... there is a big difference.
I have an unhealthy lifestyle generally, eating healthy improves that no end.
In regard to population centres , it is different tot he country but I literally travel from one end of Sydney to another...and still find time to cook.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 17:54:27
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
I frequently see elderly ladies, grocery shopping on the bus, alone, with a weeks worth of groceries in their "trolly carts".... im sure young able bodied people can do it as well..
Difference is, often times, elderly ladies don't eat copious amounts of cow and pigs. I'm not saying it'd be impossible for me, as an "able bodied" guy to carry my groceries, it's just that with what I eat/how I eat, as well as having my wife and 2 kids that are being fed (with the occasional diaper box, etc), I'd have to change my shopping habits, even to fit into an old lady's "trolley cart" (not to mention... have you ever seen a guy in his 20s, who wasn't homeless with a cart of any kind?? )
if you are too lazy to make one trip to that market 5 km away each week, but find the time to make 21 trips a week to fast food places, thats a CHOICE and its on you.
How are people supposed to get a week's worth of food transported 5km without a car? Do you know how hard it is to get 6+ grocery bags on a bus even *IF* you have a cart?
Also: Lots of people in low-income jobs either work in fast food or at a place which is connected to fast food. So it is very easy for those 21 meals a week to eat 5 of them 'lunches' at your employer or commercial center you work near. Double shifts for the working poor and weekend jobs means 14 of those 21 meals are probably at or near work. How is that 'harder' than taking a weeks worth of food on public transportation 5km?
its far more work/time/effort as well, and its far more money to go to fast food places that often. it takes just as long to wait in line as it does to cook stuff.
That assumes you have the space to prepare meals, and the tools to prepare meals in your limited living quarters.
most of your "reasons why its totally ok to eat poorly" are that it is "easier", which is not a proven point, but lets be nice, and assume you are correct that it is "easier" to eat bad food.
so what? dont make the EASY choice... make the hard CHOICE... its a CHOICE... its easier to smoke then to quit, its easier to lay on the couch then to go for a run, its easier to play video games and get fast food then to spend that time shopping and preparing healthy meals for your kids...
Maybe if these people stopped making all the "easiest" choices and actually made the "correct but slightly harder" choice it would get better,
it hardly takes the responsability away from someone making bad choices when you simply assert that "yeah, they are making bad choices, but hey, its the easy way out, so how can you blame em?
also, despite your entitled attitude, cars are 100% NOT required for shopping. there are these magical things called buses that also have the ability to locomote from place to place while carrying you and your groceries.
Spoken like someone who has never taken public transportation in their lives. If you don't live in a city, it is easily 45 minutes one-way to a grocery store because bus routs are not A to B, Sometimes you have to go via C,D,E to get to B with a bus only by every 20-30 minutes. And many buses are at capacity and you can't actually carry your cart of groceries on because they don't allow it, especially during peak times, so one now has to take off work to go shopping in your narrative. Most times when you have rapid transportation or empty buses, one would be at work.
Telling poor people they should 'bootstrap' themselves up because they should do things which are 'hard' don't realize how hard things actually are. Unreasonably so... And just because it can be done, doesn't necessarily mean it is 'ok' for the poor to be pointlessly burdened for no reason.
I work at a soup kitchen with liberal guilt snobby rich people who get so angry when they feel someone 'doesn't deserve' the food we serve... like they are cheating 'the system'. "That person is not really homeless..." or "How dare they take two helpings to take one home with them." If I had my way, I would have more places where families and children could get healthy prepared meals more accessible for them because they are not beating a system, they are trying to avoid being crushed by it. Society is better off giving free food to children than trying to deal with the costs of malnutrition and poor education due to lack of food later. Same can be said for adults who could use those 6-8 hours a week toiling like the good and deserving of hardship poor that they are going to the store to prepare 'healthy meals' for other actions... like taking care of kids, community education programs or simply getting some rest so they can work a double shift. Sadly, 'fast food' is infinitly easier than the fictional narrative of cooking at home which people want to present, and it isn't because they are lazy. Next time you work 16 hour days for 14 days straight... let me know how that trip to the market on the bus works out for you, you lazy slob.
So 'It can be done without a car' rings hollow and out of touch to me. People have hard lives already, it is not laziness which drives them... it is survival and a system stacked against them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 18:00:25
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
If you are sitting at home not doing anything then yes, driving to McDonalds or other fast food joints 3 times a day takes up more time than driving to the market once every week or so,
Or, you know, you could actually talk reality for a lot of people.
A) Fast food places are everywhere, but grocery stores are not.
B) If you are already out driving (to/from work, taking/picking the kids up from school) then going to a fast food joint doesn't take any additional time other than the 5 minutes you spend waiting on them to hand you your food.
C) If you are one of the many working poor, then finding a time to actually do a true shopping trip can be difficult.
if that was true D-usa,
then why isnt obesity a problem limited to the poor?
I never claimed that it was.
You seem to be claiming that poor people don't have any of these problems though.
also, your examples all list CHOICES people make
Yes. I made the choice to only build one grocery store 5 miles from my home compared to 20something fast food places. I people with multiple jobs make the choice not to have the time to spend 30 minutes a day cooking and 2 hours a week shopping vs 15 minutes a day picking something up on the way.
(not to mention, you totally, insultingly, handwaive over my own personal experiance with poverty being the "reality" behind my assertions) as my experiance with poverty showed me very clearly that buying and making healthy food was:
I'm sorry that people trained, educated, and working in this field don't agree with you on what the problem is. What's insulting is you standing there pretending that your own personal experience is somehow indicative of what most people are facing and basically implying that anyone that is fat and poor is somehow dumber than you.
cheaper, faster, and better for me... it took SLIGHTLY more EFFORT (not time) in that I would plan out a weeks worth of meals and then shop for them, but the time involved was the same/less then for fast food, and the $ involved was WAY less.
Awesome for you. Here is a home made healthy grain organic and fair-trade sourced chocolate chip cookie. Enjoy it with the smug satisfaction of knowing that you are better than every other fat poor person out there.
Guess what, you don't need any guns because I never had to shoot anybody. Don't insult me by hand-waving away my experience and pretending that what worked for me doesn't magically work for every other person.
so stop pretending that fast food is cheaper, faster when it just is not.
It is, for many people.
if you are too lazy to make one trip to that market 5 km away each week, but find the time to make 21 trips a week to fast food places, thats a CHOICE and its on you.
Listen, if you are too lazy to actually read a single thing anybody in this thread has explained to you while continuing to pretend that your personal experience is the solution for every single fat person on the north american continent then I can't help you.
I, personally, don't have that problem
I, personally, don't live in a food desert. But many do. The concept of food deserts have been explained to you, don't be too lazy to actually read them.
There are plenty of people who make the choice to be unhealthy.
But there are plenty of people who cannot make the choice to spend 2 hours a week to shop and 30 minutes a day to cook because they do not have the time. They only have the time to pick up something on the way to their jobs/school. I assume that the Canadian educational system covered math, so it shouldn't be hard for you to figure out that adding 5 minutes to a trip that you are already taking takes less time than making an additional trip to go shopping and then preparing that food. And that is ignoring the cost for gas, as there are plenty of people who have just enough money to fill up the tank to make it to work and back.
its far more work/time/effort as well, and its far more money to go to fast food places that often. it takes just as long to wait in line as it does to cook stuff.
Post a YouTube video of you preparing 7 meals (shopping, prepping, cooking, serving) in 5 minutes or less for each and you will make a valid point. Until then you are talking out your rear.
most of your "reasons why its totally ok to eat poorly"
I have NEVER said that it was "totally OK to eat poorly". I gave you real reasons why many poor people do, but I never said that it was okay.
are that it is "easier", which is not a proven point, but lets be nice, and assume you are correct that it is "easier" to eat bad food.
It is proven. Decades of research have found it to be true. We can all lament that none of the research ever found you, for public health as we know it would be changed forever upon your discovery.
so what? dont make the EASY choice... make the hard CHOICE... its a CHOICE... its easier to smoke then to quit, its easier to lay on the couch then to go for a run, its easier to play video games and get fast food then to spend that time shopping and preparing healthy meals for your kids...
It is easy to choose a reality where a day has more than 24 hours and 7 days a week and where there is a grocery store at every corner and healthy food is truly cheaper and easier than any and all fast food.
Maybe if these people stopped making all the "easiest" choices and actually made the "correct but slightly harder" choice it would get better,
Many people make the only choice that is available to them. Sorry you consider them lazy.
it hardly takes the responsability away from someone making bad choices when you simply assert that "yeah, they are making bad choices, but hey, its the easy way out, so how can you blame em?
It's not the easy way out. It's often the only way out. So you work on making sure there are more people.
OF course it is just as easy to take away the responsibility from yourself and pretend that every single person is lazier, dumber, and just not as good as you and that everything is their own damn fault and nobody should be bothered to fix anything.
also, despite your entitled attitude, cars are 100% NOT required for shopping. there are these magical things called buses that also have the ability to locomote from place to place while carrying you and your groceries.
United States of America, I want you to meet a Canadian with an entitled attitude about public transportation being available for everyone anytime anywhere. Canadian, I want you to meet the United States of America where Public Transport is a joke in the majority of cities.
My entitled ass didn't have a car for a year, because my old one broke down and I didn't feel that I needed one. I rode the bus in Oklahoma City because I'm used to actually using public transit since I grew up in Europe. I had to do a lot of planing since many of our bus routes only run once an hour, and it also involved walking the 5 miles from the bus stop (in front of the grocery store incidentally) to my house, since there was no public transportation going any closer.
I mean, we get it. We can summarize your entire opinion with this: "I was poor, I wasn't fat, I had plenty of time to go shopping and cook and prepare foods and I had an excellent public transportation system that let me go shopping easily. Everybody else that is not me is just lazy and stupid and just makes poor choices and every one of you guys are just enabling them and making excuses for them."
Sorry that YOUR life experience is not the reality for every single poor person on the continent.
I work 52 Km away from my house as the crow flies. I travel by public transport .my day is about 13 and a half hours round trip.I do a 15 minute shop every day (depending on what my backpack can take), if I had a car it would be way easier, yes, even if I was doing double shifts.You may not save time that you can measure from eating healthy, but the benefit you get from healthy food in effectiveness can not be measured.
I'm not denying that there is a tremendous benefit to eating healthier, not at all.
But see my note on public transportation in Oklahoma City and you can see how it is not that easy of an option here.
Eating healthy is easy, eating gak is perceived as easy... there is a big difference.
Eating gak can be easier if you take time available, availability of grocery stores, and prices of groceries into consideration. It doesn't make it right, but it makes it easy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 18:25:40
2014/07/25 18:26:45
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Did I not make a single valid point in my last two posts? I actually think I did.
For once I'm being serious...and agreeing with easysauce. WTF is going on?
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2014/07/25 18:28:13
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Bullockist wrote: Did I not make a single valid point in my last two posts? I actually think I did. For once I'm being serious...and agreeing with easysauce. WTF is going on?
You're drunk, you fell down the stairs and hit your head, mid life crisis causing psychosis, priapism leading to necrosis, you woke up on the wrong side of the kangaroo.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It's still broken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 18:31:34
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
I work at a soup kitchen with liberal guilt snobby rich people who get so angry when they feel someone 'doesn't deserve' the food we serve... like they are cheating 'the system'. "That person is not really homeless..." or "How dare they take two helpings to take one home with them." If I had my way, I would have more places where families and children could get healthy prepared meals more accessible for them because they are not beating a system, they are trying to avoid being crushed by it. Society is better off giving free food to children than trying to deal with the costs of malnutrition and poor education due to lack of food later. .
I like this statement, I give about $10 a week to random homeless people and most people are gak to them. the only reason I started giving is I had a friend who was homeless when he was 16. There is no qualifier for homelessness, we are all potentially 6 weeks away from it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 18:32:34
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
To be fair, d-usa, there are nearly as many researchers that don't buy into the notion of "food deserts" as those that do. It's a pretty controversial subject even amongst the better informed (than us).
dozen recently and currently incarcerated women gathered in a classroom across the street from their San Francisco jail and considered a bulb of fennel. Crowded around a few small tables, the students peppered their teacher, Vera Pittman, with questions.
“Is that a vegetable?”
“Do we have to eat the hair?”
“It’s fronds, not hair,” said Pittman, walking the fennel to each table so everyone could inhale its licorice-like smell.
The fennel 101 lesson was part of a cooking class called Soul Food, a program started by a local chef and aimed at teaching low-income women how to cook and eat fresh and local foods. Many women in the class are from the Bay Area’s poorest neighborhoods, places where people suffer more often from illnesses that better diets may delay or prevent, including high blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. They will die, on average, years earlier than wealthier Americans.
Since 2004 there’s been a sharp spike in the number of programs like Soul Food that are aimed at reducing such health disparities by making fresh food more accessible to low-income people. These programs have earned the support of politicians and the first lady, who’s made fresh food initiatives a cornerstone of her campaign against childhood obesity.
It’s easy to understand why Michelle Obama and other influential figures have promoted fresh food initiatives: Bringing a bounty of fresh produce to impoverished “food deserts” is a lovely idea. But the idea isn’t borne out by evidence. Study after study has shown that the fresh-food push does nothing to improve the health of poor people, who continue to live markedly shorter and sicker lives than better-off Americans.
British politicians introduced the idea of food deserts in the mid-1990s, adopting the term after a few preliminary studies suggested a link might exist between distance to a grocery store and the diets of poor people. The idea had caught on in the U.S. by 2004, when Pennsylvania passed a Fresh Food Financing Initiative, which offered grants and loans to supermarkets willing to open in distressed neighborhoods and helped smaller stores expand their supplies of fresh food. Twenty-two states now have some version of fresh-food financing and there are countless local and nonprofit programs, including cooking and nutrition classes (like Soul Food) designed to get more fresh fruits and vegetables into the lives of poor people.
Researchers have suspected for decades that people who live in poverty die early because of the stress of poverty itself.
The first lady became fresh food’s most prominent booster when she announced the Healthy Food Financing Initiative in 2010. The initiative was modeled after the Pennsylvania program and also offers grants and loans, combined with tax incentives, to supermarkets willing to open in low-income neighborhoods and to help bolster the stock of healthful foods in smaller stores. Obama’s announcement followed a visit to a newly opened Philadelphia grocery store where her photo was snapped amid piles of apples, pears, and artichokes while she sipped on a freshly made smoothie. “For 10 years,” Obama explained at a speech following her tour of the Fresh Grocer, “folks had to buy their groceries at convenience stores and gas stations, where usually, they don’t have a lot of fresh food—if any—to choose from.”
The Healthy Food Financing Initiative was more than a victory for the food movement. Aimed in large part at low-income city neighborhoods, which tend to be disproportionately black and Latino, it was—and is—the Obama administration’s most visible policy designed to help poor people of color. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative has distributed more than $500 million to increase fresh food access—at the same time that funding for food stamps, a program proven to improve the lives of people living in poverty, was cut to pre-stimulus levels. Since the reductions, food stamp recipients have received just $1.40 per meal per family member.
Unfortunately, more fresh food closer to home likely does nothing for folks at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Obesity levels don’t drop when low-income city neighborhoods have or get grocery stores. A 2011 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed no connection between access to grocery stores and more healthful diets using 15 years’ worth of data from more than 5,000 people in five cities. One 2012 study showed that the local food environment did not influence the diet of middle-school children in California. Another 2012 study, published in Social Science and Medicine, used national data on store availability and a multiyear study of grade-schoolers to show no connection between food environment and diet. And this month, a study in Health Affairs examined one of the Philadelphia grocery stores that opened with help from the Fresh Food Financing Initiative. The authors found that the store had no significant impact on reducing obesity or increasing daily fruit and vegetable consumption in the four years since it opened.
Earlier research suggesting that better fresh-food access improves diet and would therefore improve the health of people living in poverty was drawn from small samples or looked at store availability in narrow geographical slices—often without information about how or where the people who lived there shopped. “They never link the neighborhood characteristics to actual individuals,” explains Helen Lee, author of the Social Science and Medicine study. “Without that, all you have is speculation.”
Lee also notes in her study that, on closer inspection, food deserts don’t actually exist in the U.S., at least not as a national problem—on average, poor neighborhoods have more grocery stores than wealthier neighborhoods. Even before Obama’s Healthy Food Financing Initiative was announced in 2010, studies suggested that the food desert explanation for obesity wasn’t right. A report from Department of Agriculture researchers presented to Congress in 2009 also showed more grocery stores in poor neighborhoods. In 2012, USDA researchers crunched the data again and found once more that low-income neighborhoods had more—not fewer—grocery stores.
Why, then, do campaigns like the Healthy Food Financing Initiative persist? The push for fresh food is usually considered a progressive cause, connected as it is to criticisms of processed foods’ effect on health. And the most prominent voices against the fresh-food push have been conservative, from Rush Limbaugh to Reason magazine. But look a little closer, and fresh-food financing initiatives are a pretty conservative idea. They offer a market-based opportunity for individuals to make better choices about health, leaving the impression that people living in poverty get sick for reasons that are within their control.
In fact, researchers who focus on health disparities have suspected for decades that people who live in poverty die early because of the stress of poverty itself rather than the poor health choices low-income people make. That’s not to say that poor people don’t make decisions about diet and exercise, but in general they are preoccupied with very different choices than wealthier people are: Should I pay my electricity or my water bill? Can I pay my rent and buy my kid a pair of school shoes? The immediacy of these pressures may make it more difficult to think about how eating choices today will affect health 10 or 20 years from now.
But more importantly, the constant calculus of survival will wear down mind and body and deteriorate health over years. Bruce McEwan, one of the pioneers of research in the biology of health inequality, coined the term “allostatic load” to describe the cumulative wear and tear of stress reactions over time. Stress reactions, like floods of adrenaline and cortisol and increased blood pressure, are helpful as short-term reactions to dangerous or challenging situations. But if stress reactions are constant, they create physiological conditions that damage the body. “One of the things having an elevated sympathetic response is that you have an inflammatory tone in the body,” McEwan explains. “Inflammation underlies all of the diseases of modern life—from cancer to depression to neurological diseases.” Those diseases of modern life also include heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes—illnesses we typically associate with poverty.
But the implication of McEwan’s research—that poverty itself is making people ill—is not one that Americans are prepared to accept. Instead, we build supermarkets, finance green grocer carts, and teach former inmates about fennel, feeling like we’re promoting a progressive effort to improve the plight of the disadvantaged. Meanwhile, poor people are living shorter, sicker lives, with no helpful new policy in sight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 18:36:53
Bullockist wrote: Did I not make a single valid point in my last two posts? I actually think I did.
For once I'm being serious...and agreeing with easysauce. WTF is going on?
You're drunk, you fell down the stairs and hit your head, mid life crisis causing psychosis, priapism leading to necrosis, you woke up on the wrong side of the kangaroo.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It's still broken.
Holy crap, it's like you are a psychic.......btw when am I winning the lottery? And when do I recover from brain damage
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 18:35:12
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
I like this statement, I give about $10 a week to random homeless people and most people are gak to them. the only reason I started giving is I had a friend who was homeless when he was 16. There is no qualifier for homelessness, we are all potentially 6 weeks away from it.
Most people don't have the savings and are just a few lost paychecks away from poverty. That is one lesson the global recession should have taught us and we should be more compassionate because of it.
The rate of welfare went up a lot during that time. Not because we have a "welfare president", but because a lot of people that never thought that they would need it actually found themselves needing it.
I consider myself blessed to have what I have. I could have a lot more, but I realize that I could have a hell of a lot less.
Dude if you got necrosis due to a priapism, I think you should not be thinking about the lottery right now. Though that'd be the brain damage talking...
I'm just trying to let you down gently.
Welfare is filthy socialism d-usa, and I'll thank you not to mention it without first putting up trigger warnings.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/25 18:36:20
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
cincydooley wrote: To be fair, d-usa, there are nearly as many researchers that don't buy into the notion of "food deserts" as those that do. It's a pretty controversial subject even amongst the better informed (than us).
True. But even "it's not entirely proven" or "people don't agree yet" is a better stance than "feth you, I didn't have a problem, everybody else is lazier than me".
cincydooley wrote: To be fair, d-usa, there are nearly as many researchers that don't buy into the notion of "food deserts" as those that do. It's a pretty controversial subject even amongst the better informed (than us).
True. But even "it's not entirely proven" or "people don't agree yet" is a better stance than "feth you, I didn't have a problem, everybody else is lazier than me".
Check the article I linked above. Pretty good.
2014/07/25 18:40:21
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
D-usa you warm my heart and make me think the US is a good country...sadly everyone else kills that.
Seriously everyone , next time you see a homeless person give them some cash and talk to them, they need human contact, and most of them are beautiful people who NEED a conversation. It doesn't cost us much, but makes such a difference to them.
* I've been doing this for 10 years
it's interesting finding out the inequalities they face. Like in Austalia, the cost of a room, even whilst on benefits means they cannot eat.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Well you see, those homeless people are just lazy.
If they just put some effort in, they'd be rich in no time.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
)
