Rich people aren't less likely to be obese because they can afford vegetables...

4runner wrote:

It is because the poor are too frugal and too concerned with saving money.

There is an opportunity cost to cooking your own food.

For 5 or 6 dollars, I can walk into a fast food place, wait for three minutes, and eat a meal.

If I make it myself, I have to:

-make sure I have or buy the right ingredients;

-prep the ingredients;

-cook the food;

-clean the cookware; and

-load/unload the dishwasher.

It is at least 20-30 minutes of extra time for me to cook at home. Even for someone who is only making $10-12 per hour, fast food saves money.

For someone who is earning more than $10-12 per hour, eating anything other than fast food is just throwing money out the door.

People are generally spending dinner prep time watching TV.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

true. But if we just made those same houses out of wood instead of bricks, the number of houses would actually magically decrease!

(or something like that....)

What are you talking about you crazy nutjob? That if you build houses out of wood rather than bricks the number of houses decreases? Jesus you're not quite right in the head are you? The point is that saying obesity follows a rise in calories is like saying a crowd grows bigger because more people join it. It's a tautological statement that doesn't tell you anything. It's mindless unthinking repetition.

No one wants to hear it wrote:

It's because they are more self-disciplined and less lazy. It's not hard to eat healthily on the cheap, but it takes advanced planning and impulse control. These aren't exactly qualities the poor are known for.

How do you account for the "rich" folks who are over weight? There are some ...you know.

Essentially, calories are cheap. And many folks have a misguided notion about "junk food".

It's obvious that one can eat so called junk food and still not become over weight. I did.

The thing that counts the most is calories....and then quality of the food.

And self-discipline is a a factor.

bioman wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

true. But if we just made those same houses out of wood instead of bricks, the number of houses would actually magically decrease!

(or something like that....)

What are you talking about you crazy nutjob? That if you build houses out of wood rather than bricks the number of houses decreases? Jesus you're not quite right in the head are you? The point is that saying obesity follows a rise in calories is like saying a crowd grows bigger because more people join it. It's a tautological statement that doesn't tell you anything. It's mindless unthinking repetition.

I don't think you quite got what T Rexing was saying.

Say you live somewhere where there are lots of termites. I mean termites everywhere. Termite mounds big enough for a grizzly to scratch his whole back. Termites brining down houses before they're even finished being built. I mean the damned place is swimming in termites.

Then you begin to notice some ants. Not just a few either. Before you know it there are almost as many ants as termites. Now if people start worrying about the ants they might not notice that there aren't as many termite mounds around as there used to be. But you need raw materials to build the mounds - mostly wood, clay and termite sputum. So if you start making houses out of bricks rather than wood you might just find your termite problem solved. But there aint no way to really get rid of ants.

I bet you'd like Herbert Spencer. Google him. The poor often live in food deserts. They lack nutritional knowledge and overall cultural capital. Third-world countries are often plant-based and healthy. But those inconvenient data don't serve your intention to blame the victim. Do some reading in food theory.

runner who professes wrote:

I bet you'd like Herbert Spencer. Google him. The poor often live in food deserts. They lack nutritional knowledge and overall cultural capital. Third-world countries are often plant-based and healthy. But those inconvenient data don't serve your intention to blame the victim. Do some reading in food theory.

I think that's exactly what most people are saying. I'm confused - do you think that are you also "blaming the victim" or do you think the other people are saying something vastly different?

bfd wrote:

4runner wrote:

It is because the poor are too frugal and too concerned with saving money.

There is an opportunity cost to cooking your own food.

For 5 or 6 dollars, I can walk into a fast food place, wait for three minutes, and eat a meal.

If I make it myself, I have to:

-make sure I have or buy the right ingredients;

-prep the ingredients;

-cook the food;

-clean the cookware; and

-load/unload the dishwasher.

It is at least 20-30 minutes of extra time for me to cook at home. Even for someone who is only making $10-12 per hour, fast food saves money.

For someone who is earning more than $10-12 per hour, eating anything other than fast food is just throwing money out the door.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/business/20080801-metrics-graphic.html

People are generally spending dinner prep time watching TV.

So? It still takes an extra 20-30 minutes out of your day compared to fast food.

You imply the rich are thin because they eat expensive "good" foods. In fact they (especially wives) are rich because they were naturally slim. Diet is only a small part of the story.

Precious Roy wrote:

In lower income families the problem is that there is minimal time for food preparation due to long work days, working two jobs or working late shifts. Lower income families will frequently rely on fast food for meals or will cook the fastest and easiest meals from the frozen food section of the grocery store.

Nope:

* Low income people do not work more hours than high income persons.

* Healthy food can be prepared as fast or faster than prepackaged "fast food".

* Healthy food is not more expensive than prepackaged "fast food".

I have also reduced the amount of garbage and recycling that the family usually generates in five days from maybe four to five bags of garbage and half an enormous recycling bin to less than half a garbage bag and essentially the junk mail, while they're away.

bioman wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

true. But if we just made those same houses out of wood instead of bricks, the number of houses would actually magically decrease!

(or something like that....)

What are you talking about you crazy nutjob? That if you build houses out of wood rather than bricks the number of houses decreases? Jesus you're not quite right in the head are you? The point is that saying obesity follows a rise in calories is like saying a crowd grows bigger because more people join it. It's a tautological statement that doesn't tell you anything. It's mindless unthinking repetition.

Relax biobro. I agreed with your statement. But clearly you missed my metaphorical satire.

Some think that if you changed the type of calories but keep the total amount the same as before, one magically reduces the obesity problem.

Sort of like substituting wood for brick (piece for piece) and somehow reducing the amount of houses being built.

And while you called the other poster's comment "mindless unthinking...that doesn't tell you anything." That's certainly untrue. Yes, it should be self evident, but to so many people, it apparently is not. Decreased activity AND increased calories have created the obesity problem. In theory, it could have been due solely to decreased activity. So your wrong that the guy stating that obesity has correlated with/is due to increased caloric intake tells us nothing. No, it tells us something in fact.

So relax and stop being an arrogant dick.

asdfe wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

The rise in obesity rates in the US has clearly followed a rise in the average intake of calories. Most of the increased caloric intake has been from carbs, protein and fat.

As opposed to what? haha

As opposed to carbs, carbs and more carbs.

If you replace carbs with protein and fat, the obesity problem will disappear, according to some people. ;)

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

So relax and stop being an arrogant dick.

Hi pot, this is kettle.

Also, decreased activity and increased calories have not caused the obesity problem. That's like saying wood and bricks cause houses.

Don't confuse that which is incidental with that which is causal. Socieies, architects and builders cause houses, not wood and bricks.

You dopey sh*t.

'The fact is, though, that you can typically get by far the most calories for the buck with junk foods,'

Garbage buy a sack of potatoes get some cheap frozen chicken legs and some vegatables fresh or frozen

I used to eat this all the time when I was single mainly because its easy to make but the cost per meal is well under £2 and unlike a 'big' mac and fries it will actually fill you up

bioman wrote:

Also, decreased activity and increased calories have not caused the obesity problem. That's like saying wood and bricks cause houses.

Don't confuse that which is incidental with that which is causal. Socieies, architects and builders cause houses, not wood and bricks.

You dopey sh*t.

More of the same useless, boring, nonsense from you (Hi Slimey Runner. If not you, it might as well be, you are parroting word for word what you, and your possible clone, says every time: " you're confusing cause and effect, blah, blah, blah." Also interesting to see what time you are posting at. up late? Or early overseas? ;-) You're not very clever)

And once again, you are incorrect: increased food consumption and decreased activity ARE the cause of the obesity epidemic (as opposed to bricks and wood, eating more and moving less are actual actions or non-actions and "choices", not simply objects. Again, you are trying waaaaaay to hard to be clever and failing).

Are there reasons for these behaviors (overeating and more sedentary lifestyles)? As I've written countless times, of course there are, and they can be summed up in two words: modern society. More specifically, a modern society that makes it less necessary to move/be active than before to survive, is filled with countless leisure activities and jobs where sitting is the primary "action", where opportunities to be involved in recreation activities (in poorer neighborhoods) are few, and is filled with easy to access, very inexpensive, no need to cook, calorie dense/micro-nutrient barren foods. It's easy to become fat in such a society.

Now stop trying to be clever and "explain" something that has already been explained.

drivel wrote:

* Healthy food can be prepared as fast or faster than prepackaged "fast food".

* Healthy food is not more expensive than prepackaged "fast food".

This is simply not true. If someone on near minimum wage spends 20-30 minutes prepping food and cleaning up after, the $5-6 cost of trip to a fast food restaurant is already covered.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, efficiencies of labor speciation and scale make fast food cheaper than home cooked food.

fsdfsdaf wrote:

Eating healthy while on a budget takes work. Here are some of the top items that come to mind, factoring price and health

- oats

- eggs

- corn

- zucchini/squash

- cilantro

- bananas

- frozen fruit is moderately priced, plus lasts longer than fresh so less likely to waste

- chicken is generally moderately priced

- rice

- yogurt

In addition, shop the sales. Rotisserie chicken is high in sodium, but cheap and not too bad when you add fresh vegetables and rice.

I've found that oats are a cheap source of grains (carbs or whatever). Black beans are great too. I buy them canned but I'm sure dried works too. Just shred a REASONABLE amount of cheese (which is shouldn't kill your food bill if you're eating a reasonable portion).

Eggs, frozen chicken tenders (white meat) are great for protein.

Yogurt is kinda pricey.

For vegetables, carrots are cheap. Frozen broccoli works too.

For fruits, bananas and usually apples. Or whatever's on sale (strawberries, grapes, etc).

Of course vegetables and fruit are loaded with sugar and will make you fat, so just skip that and you'll be rich and skinny.

Good grief. You maintain this delusional fantasy that there are only one or two people on this board who think you're an uninformed tool and that they post under dozens of different names in order to troll you. Do a message board search on yourself if you think you can handle it. You'll find no shortage of people calling you out on your myopic simplistic bullsh*t and your nutjob personality. You are a complete sociopath if ever I saw one.

Stop posting.

drivel wrote:

* Healthy food can be prepared as fast or faster than prepackaged "fast food".

Can you expand a bit on this? I'm genuinely interested and looking for ideas on healthy food that can be prepared quickly.

About the other points, some of it is access to foods.

In the nearest town to me in the nearest grocery/convenience store, there isn't much fresh food in there at all, it's shocking. And often if there is some in it's horrible onions and carrots that look like they've been lying around under fluorescent lights for weeks on end. You can't even buy potatoes there. There's a lot of baked goods, stuff in tins and then a load of junk food, crisps and chocolate. Then freezer meals.

I'd guess in the 50s, 60, 70s etc there would be a different range of products available and it would be split up into a bakery, fishmonger, butcher, grocers store with fresh produce.

As far as drinks go, water is obviously the cheapest and best for you. With this some of it is people simply not knowing. I don't think people realise how many calories are in soft drinks and how much it adds up over the course of a year. I know it should be a simple fact but I really think a lot of people don't realise that it makes that much difference, when having a can of soft drink is like having half a chocolate bar or more in terms of calories.