Cost of Food & Obesity Amongst Poorer People

adouglasmhor

Anyone want to google Leptin resistance for another reason for obesity.

lobbyludd

breadlinebetty wrote: »

You obviously didn't understand my original question : I asked how poorer people can afford to eat so much junk food? And they must eat a lot of it to maintain their weight.

I don't agree that all junk food is cheaper than fresh food - and I've aleady set out examples - as have others.:)

This wasn't started to just discuss nutrition ( it was money orientated) but as with many theads it's digressed and moved along. Nothing wrong in that!

And I'm certainly not belittling anyone. I can see how a quick fix of a chocolate bar can soothe and comfort - I've done it myself with all sorts of food and drink But if I felt the need to eat rubbish food every day I would be concerned....

A quick fix a chocolate or a bag of chips may be - but going for a nice half hour walk through the park will release the same amount of endorphins as a deep fried Mars Bar - and costs a lot less too. And the feelgood effect will stay with you longer.

In your case you seem to have all the answers and know exactly why you binge eat on junk food...which begs the question: if you know the cause of your problems why aren't you addressing them?

au contraire : I both understood, and answered, your original question: calories in "junk" food are on average cheaper than those in nutrient dense food, and rather than throw in a few odd examples I pointed to a study on this. that's how people afford enough of it to maintain their "bulk"

if you read the very first book I referenced you will see how that carbohydrate-rich, nutritionally empty junk food preferentially lays down fat over the same number of calories of veg + meat (much higher cost per calorie).

so each "junk" calorie is both cheaper and more likely to be laid down as body fat than a protein or fat derived calorie.

To be fair your first post did explore the "Why's" of the choice of junk over nutritious food. I offered a personal explanation to give some insight.

thanks for your concern, for reference though, this was an explanation of a personal experience rather than a defense of the state I am in, or an absolution of responsibility. I am fully aware of my problems, how I got there, and explained that I am addressing them. Granted I didn't go into full details, but this is an internet forum, not a confessional .

The belittling comment wasn't specifically aimed at you, but at other posters who did indeed state that poor, obese people are slothful, lazy and stupid. Which really, on this sub-forum, is unfortunately to be expected, did you really not know that?

Loughton_Monkey

michaels wrote: »

It only takes one data point to disproove a theory

I believe you inserted the name "Wayne Rooney" into my post. as a 63-year-old who considers himself reasonably informed and educated, I'm afraid to ask... but...

Who the hell is Wayne Rooney? Another of these 'boy band' idiots?

breadlinebetty

Generali wrote: »

You're right, you can't just live off veggies but it's what people should mostly eat.

Everyone should try fois gras, if only to know what they're missing. It's delicious and not necessarily cruel.

In Aus, for no apparent reason, we are told to have 7 a day rather than 5: 5 veggies and 2 fruit.

They're talking of upping the veg intake in the UK to 10 - I saw that on the news just the other day. But horse and water spring to mind......

Of course, vegetables and fruit are paramount to good health , poviding they're not full of cancer causing pesticides, or have lost all their vitamins in the harvesting/packaging/cold storage - sometimes stored for months - and then left on the shelves for days or even weeks, depending.....and you most definitely need protein in you diet, too.

As for Foie Gras (BTW, Foie isn't spelt with an S ) it is indeed gorgeous and once eaten you'll always want more:p BUT the geese are force fed and they often suffer terrible consequences as a result.....so it is cruel. And I'm a hypocrite for eating it - albeit rarely.

breadlinebetty

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A total misrepresentation of my post!

I specifically coupled 'intelligence' and 'behaviour'. Where do I suggest any correlation between those two? Read my post again. I coupled them as two seperate things that help to define how employable you might be. Intelligence and good behaviour. Intelligence or good behaviour.

It is not arrogance to suggest that someone who is reasonably intelligent and demonstrates reasonable behaviour is more likely to earn better salaries than someone who is both unintelligent and demonstrates unreasonable behaviour. I am not suggesting an absolute realtionship, just a tendancy. A correlation. Or are you suggesting differently?

As to those in the middle (i.e. intelligent but unreasonable behaviour, or unintelligent but reasonably behaved) I make no particular judgement, and nor did I in my post.

I usually choose my words quite carefully, and I stick by what I said. You are perfectly free to disagree.

Here's your post I'm referring to:


"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. "

In your first sentence you do correlate intelligence with behaviour - that's how it comes across.

Likewise when you wrote "stupid and/or irresponsible people"

There's plenty of irresponsible people about with behavioural problems, who are not unintelligent. And there's plenty of unintelligent people about who are extremely responsible and are decent to boot!

You also seem to equate intelligence with being educated. I know plenty of well-educated people who've scraped through university, got their degrees, and although knowledgeable on a certain subject they're basically quite thick!!

Thee's plenty of highly intelligent people out there who haven't had the opportunity to go onto higher education (for all manner of reasons) so it really is stupid to assume an educated peson must be intelligent, responsible and strong-willed.

Of course an intelligent and educated peson has more chance of securing a well-paid job, but there's plenty of professions out there where the pay is poor: take teaching and nursing for example......

You're confusing wealth with intelligence, too. Just because someone earns a good salary it doesn't mean to say they're responsible, clever and stick to only eating lentils and pulses.

Your last paragaph pretty much sums up what you think of 'poor people'. You're implying they're all stupid and thick, and 'money shouldn't be thrown at them' because they're too stupid to follow a healthy diet, and anyone who doesn't agree with you on that must be uneducated!

That to me sounds pompous.

By the way, the word 'separate' is spelt with an 'a' after the 'p'- not an 'e'.

That's the way I was taught at school.:)

breadlinebetty

Saturnalia wrote: »

Gosh yes. There are quite a few supermarkets nearby but the only one on a bus route I can use to get home is just over a mile away - no problem for me to walk there but the bus back seems to take forever. For the other supermarkets it is no problem for me to take a big bag and carry my shopping home on my back (10-15 mins walk) but someone who isn't reasonably fit might not manage - and I'm only shopping for myself, I couldn't manage a week's family shop on my back. I might be about able to bear the weight but the volume would be too big.

And I'd really struggle trying to get a couple of kids and a family shop onto a bus. And paying 3 bus fares as well, especially if you want fresh goods so have to go a couple of times a week - I get why it would be easier to phone the takeaway or go to the corner shop.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to do your supermaket shopping online?:cool:

breadlinebetty

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Anyone want to google Leptin resistance for another reason for obesity.

Other reasons are:

GLANDS

SLOW METABOLISM

WATER RETENTION

BIG BONES

and lastly

FAT RETENTION

breadlinebetty

lobbyludd wrote: »

au contraire : I both understood, and answered, your original question: calories in "junk" food are on average cheaper than those in nutrient dense food, and rather than throw in a few odd examples I pointed to a study on this. that's how people afford enough of it to maintain their "bulk"

if you read the very first book I referenced you will see how that carbohydrate-rich, nutritionally empty junk food preferentially lays down fat over the same number of calories of veg + meat (much higher cost per calorie).

so each "junk" calorie is both cheaper and more likely to be laid down as body fat than a protein or fat derived calorie.

To be fair your first post did explore the "Why's" of the choice of junk over nutritious food. I offered a personal explanation to give some insight.

thanks for your concern, for reference though, this was an explanation of a personal experience rather than a defense of the state I am in, or an absolution of responsibility. I am fully aware of my problems, how I got there, and explained that I am addressing them. Granted I didn't go into full details, but this is an internet forum, not a confessional .

The belittling comment wasn't specifically aimed at you, but at other posters who did indeed state that poor, obese people are slothful, lazy and stupid. Which really, on this sub-forum, is unfortunately to be expected, did you really not know that?

I certainly didn't expect anyone to be so ignorant (not to mention rude) to suggest overweight people must be stupid! That comment reflects on their own idiocy.

I actually started the thread. as I wondered how people managed to spend so much money on junk food - especially if they are out of work. Just one pizza from the local take-away costs about a tenner, and these enormously obese people you sometimes see on TV or in the newspapers, who are too big to even get out of bed, let alone work, chomp through about 8000 calories of junk food each day.

And that amounts to a lot of money.

They must be spending in the region of about £50 a day on food and drink. So how do they do it?:EasterBun

By the way, I totally agree with you that when you want comfort food you don't yearn for a lettuce leaf. Likewise, if you've had a stressful day and want to unwind you don't yearn for a grape, you want a glass of wine!

Some people do lose or gain weight when going through a crisis (I have myself) and it's very sad, so I do sympathise with your plight. And it's good to know you're getting the help you need. But you have a valid reason for your weight gain and you're also addressing it.

Some people don't even seem to be concerened or even aware that they're damaging their health and ruining their lives by allowing themselves to get bigger and bigger.....

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

I did a long ride on Saturday morning. Saturday evening involved a Chicken Rogan Josh, Pilau Rice, half a garlic & tomato naan and half of a Sainsburys 3 for £12 red wine offer - I hate myself.:)

Like the deep fried mars bar - nice as a 'treat' or for a laugh but definitely not a sensible part of a fueling for performance strategy.

The thing is though that I know I tend to burn up about 700 calories/hour both running and cycling. I recently took up cycling and stopped running so (comparatively) fast, now it is more of a jog now at only about 6m/hr. When my wife has a treat like a magnum (ice cream) I start to think that means 260 calories/700 = 22 mins of hard exercise. I end up asking myself 'Do I really want to throw away 22 mins of effort for a few mins of eating a magnum'?

It does seem to cut down on my snacking, unfortunately the message doesn't seem to get through to my brain for glasses of wine. I'm afraid there is little progress there, especially after already having one or two glasses.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

breadlinebetty wrote: »

But I still don't understand why poorer people suffer from obesity while rich people tend not to?

Barriers to healthy eating
In order to eradicate inequalities in nutrition, the
main barriers to eating healthily must be removed.
These include:
■ Low income and debt making healthier foods
(which are generally more expensive) such as
fresh fruit and vegetables, less affordable
■ poor accessibility to affordable healthy foods
– linked to the closure of shops in deprived areas
(leading to increased cost, poor quality and
choice in remaining local shops), and to the
development of out-of-town supermarkets which
may have poor public transport links.
■ Factors in food production and the food chain,
such as the nutrient content of easily available,
cheap, processed foods which can be high in fat,
sugar or salt.
■ Poor literacy and numeracy skills are barriers
to information on maintaining a healthy diet,
household budget management and
employment
■ Food labelling can be difficult to interpret and
even misleading, for example a fatty food which
claims to have no cholesterol is still a fatty food.
■ Food marketing – 99% of food and drink
advertised to children during Saturday morning
children’s television programming were high in
fat or sugar or salt

Inequalities in diet
■ People on low incomes eat more processed foods
which are much higher in saturated fats and
salt.They also eat less variety of foods.This is
related to economies of scale and fear of
potential waste.
■ People living on state benefits eat less fruit and
vegetables, less fish and less high-fibre
breakfast cereals.
■ People in the UK living in households without an
earner consume more total calories, and
considerably more fat, salt and non-milk
extrinsic sugars than those living in households
with one or more earners.

Food Poverty and Health
In the UK, the poorer people are, the worse their diet, and the more
diet-related diseases they suffer from. This is food poverty. Poor diet
is a risk factor for the UK’s major killers of cancer, coronary heart
disease (CHD) and diabetes. Yet it is only in the past few years that the
immense contribution it makes to poor health has been quantified:
poor diet is related to 30% of life years lost in early death and
disability.
Inequalities in people’s diets can result in inequalities in people’s
health. Those on low incomes suffer from poor diets, as evidenced by
lower fruit and vegetable intakes, and a higher prevalence of dental
caries among children. They are also disproportionately affected by the
major killer diseases. It is estimated that as many as 10 million people
in the UK live in poverty, including nearly three million children.

http://www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_food_poverty.pdf