Cost of Food & Obesity Amongst Poorer People

breadlinebetty

Saturnalia wrote: »

I wonder how much is due to social factors as well as simply economics?

Richer people are going to have more money and time to devote to "the body beautiful" does this then lead onto covert or overt pressure to follow the same standards?

The cafes in richer areas where the ladies who lunch hang out have all the interesting salads, low carb and low fat meals etc, there's simply more healthy options but it costs. Whereas poorer areas have more fast food and greasy spoon type places. So if you are out for a meal with your friends, you'll usually go where the majority wants.

Looking good in our culture means being thin, so are people exposed to the high-end-fashion lifestyle more pressurised to be thin? Not just down to the thin models in the glossy ads, but do the designer brands they want to wear even make the clothes in average-to-large sizes? Whereas for poorer people who couldn't afford that stuff even if they wanted to, and probably don't buy the fashion glossy mags, does that pressure not even enter their lives?

I suppose too if you live in an area where most people are overweight or the larger side of average, you'll feel you're ok at your weight, if everyone looks the same as you then it's socially acceptable. Whereas if you are surrounded by the beautiful people, you'd probably feel the pressure to keep up.

I agree that social factors come into it, too, but whichever social class you fall into you should know whether or not you're obese. You can see if you're obsese and you can feel it. No-one walking around with stones of unwanted fat on their body can possibly think that's normal? Yes, if everyone in their community are all obese too, it may seem acceptable up to a point, but ultimately they're all alone when they undress at night......or when they squeeze into a bath....or wedge themselves into an airplane seat and ask for an extension belt......or have to lag behind a group of people on a walk because they're out of breath, sweating hot, and the insides of their legs are chafing from rubbing together.

Body fat imprisons. It closes all doors to life and happiness. So however accustomed an obese peson is to seeing other obese people, they still have to suffer the consequences of lugging all that extra bulk around.

As for fashion.....no top designers make clothes above a size 12. I agree that's unfair (many size 14s look slim if they're tall) but designers wouldn't entertain making anything over a size 12: one of the reasons being they don't want overweight people endorsing their clothes. It's bad publicity for them.

It's no accident that companies such as New Look and Primark stock clothes in plus sizes - and that they're cheap, too.........which actually tells you all you need to know.

Obesity is equated with being poor.

ILW

olly300 wrote: »

The figures prove absolutely nothing.

The "average man" in 1960 would have been shorter in height than the "average man" in 2000. If both "average man" where doing the same type of job so had the same amount of physical activity and had the same build, the man in 2000 would actually need more calories.
The figures support this hypothesis.

The point is you can quote figures and argue they prove something when there is simply not enough information about the figures i.e. how the data was collected, who was in the sample to argue anything at all.

The figures are so simple though.
If calories in exceed calories burnt off - weight gain
If calories in are less than calories burnt off - weight loss
The only variable is how many calories an individual burns in a day, which is pretty simple to make a rough estimate of.
You will not find an obese person who consistently eats let than 1500 calories a day.

olly300

ILW wrote: »

The figures are so simple though.
If calories in exceed calories burnt off - weight gain
If calories in are less than calories burnt off - weight loss
The only variable is how many calories an individual burns in a day, which is pretty simple to make a rough estimate of.
You will not find an obese person who consistently eats let than 1500 calories a day.

Where do the figures you quoted say that?

Seriously don't make things up from figures which clearly don't say anything.

If you are arguing that if you eat more and don't move then you will generally get fatter* then you can say that, but the figures you quoted don't actually support your hypothesis or the one I stated.

*There are some medical problems where you can get fatter or thinner regardless.

breadlinebetty

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

This one is relatively easy. It is to do with basic intelligence and responsible behaviour.

Those with reasonable intelligence/behaviour are infinitely better placed to get a good job with good pay than stupid and/or irresponsible people. Hence the strong correlation between 'wealth' and 'health' is simply that - a mathematical correlation. It is not 'cause and effect'.

It irritates me in the extreme to see so many 'surveys' and lobby groups try to pretend otherwise. Put simply, they say poor people are unhealthy, so give them more money and they will become more healthy. Absolute rubbish! And rather perversely, this tripe is put about by people not educated enough to understand this. Quite a vicious circle it seems to me.

Just because someone is reasonably intelligent it doesn't mean to say they are of good behaviour, and don't suffer from weak-will and cravings.

That's complete nonsense to suggest that; it's borderirng on prejudice and arrogance.

Poverty doesn't equal stupidity, and likewise wealth doesn't equal intelligence. Yes, poverty may encourage drug/alcohol/food abuse, but being born into poverty doesn't mean you have a low IQ. It just means you don't have the same privileges and opportunities as rich people do.

And plenty of rich people abuse their bodies too, albeit with a more expensive fix than a KFC!

Of course, theere are the dregs and misfits of life who have the intelligence of a gnat, but they come come fom both ends of the spectrum of society. Poor people who eat rubbish food may be uneducated, or maybe they're depressed. Maybe some of them are completely stupid. But you can't say they're ALL stupid for stuffing their faces with junk food, in just the same way you can't say a rich playboy is stupid for filling his nostrils with cocaine every night.

breadlinebetty

Miggie wrote: »

Most cheap food is high in carbohydrate and fat (especially ready meals). High carb = high insulin, which means that food is laid down as fat instead of being used for energy.

Many people can develop insulin resistance as a result adn this leads to more laying down of fat, even on low calorie diets.

This has lead to the phenomenon of severely obese people suffering from malnutrition.

An interesting book about the science of high carbs/obesity is "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.

From a personal point of view, I've been on low fat/low calorie diets for years and have just got more and more tired and also more fat. I'm not lazy, stupid or any of the other ignorant and rude things people say. Since cutting out carbs I've lost 2 stones and am still losing.

which means that food is laid down as fat instead of being used for energy.

I agee with everything you say, but isn't all food you eat burned for energy, providing you don't overeat and you exercise? Surely it must be, otherwise you would just get bigger and bigger......

breadlinebetty

quantic wrote: »

This is very anecdotal, but I typically eat better if I am cooking for others at the same time. If my wife goes out for the night I can't really be bothered to cook anything for just myself. But if we are both eating I always make us something nice, from scratch - we don't really buy anything from the junkfood isles.

In the context which the original poster is talking, I think a lot of it has to do with patience of modern Britain, I find most people want instant gratification now and are not prepared to wait, even 20 mins while they make a proper meal.

Don't want to save up for things = finance, don't want to spend time cooking = junk food. Same thing really...

"I think a lot of it has to do with patience of modern Britain, I find most people want instant gratification now and are not prepared to wait, even 20 mins"


It probably takes more than 20 minutes to order a pizza and wait for it to be delivered....I think it's more to do with being a sloth.

And I can back that argument up by pointing out that you rarely see couples 'at it' behind bus shelters, or in the aisles of ASDA, because they want instant gratification and can't wait 20 minutes to get home and make out in the comfort of their biscuit crumbed sheets.

breadlinebetty

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

To eat well for less you need two basic things:

1. A nearby outlet for fruit and veg that is not a supermarket. A lot of people on council estates with no car may find this difficult- I did read that it's a particular problem in Glasgow.

2. The knowledge of how to prepare a meal from scratch, or at least using some fresh ingredients. This comes from parents or school, and judging by the sales of junk food, both are currently failing.

I live on my own and a week's worth of fruit n veg from the Saturday stall on my local High St costs me £3-£4. I'm a vegetarian, so most of my meals are veg plus pasta/rice/noodles and sauce (that comes out of a jar- there's always some on offer for a quid that lasts me 2-3 meals). I am no cook and certainly don't spend hours faffing in the kitchen.

One problem with your diet is that you buy a week's worth of fruit and vegetables all in one go. By the end of the week there's possibly no vitamins left in that fuit and veg.....

And what do you eat for potein?:cool:

Besides that, food should be enjoyable and tasty, and if you'e eating just rice or pasta with veg and sauce each night, besides lacking in variety and certain proteins, it must be quite boring?

Koicarp

The reason why rich people are thinner and healthier than poor people is locus of control.

breadlinebetty

Generali wrote: »

The best advice to eating well is contained in 6 words:

Eat mostly vegetables, not too much.

The trick to eating well? Clearly that would be to stick to the advice but then things like fois gras, sweets, ice cream, chocolate, cheese, butter, lard, bacon and pork crackling are all so very, very good it's very hard to stick to the advice.

You need protein with those vegetables........you can't live on vegetables alone. Though you can neve eat too many vegetables in my opinion - I always have at least 7 different veggies with my Sunday roast for example : roast potatoes, roasted butternut squash, mashed carrots and parsnips, steamed broccoli, cauliflower and either cabbage, spring greens or peas - a whole rainbow of colour and taste!:)

As for eating foie gras - some people would lynch you for that! But it IS gorgeous...........:)

And pork crackling with gravy and apple sauce - oooh - temptation!:p

PasturesNew

Sometimes, with little else in your life, a good pie and chips is really "cheering" food. You can enjoy tucking into a good pie/chips/mushy peas (mine's cooking right now) ..... and there's no fun in some lettuce leaves and a tomato.