Cost of Food & Obesity Amongst Poorer People

PaulF81

Yep, you would need 500g of beans per day to meet your rda. Can't say anyone within smelling distance of you would be happy with that dietary choice.

http://www.3fatchicks.com/top-8-vegetables-high-in-protein/

posh*spice

posh*spice wrote: »

Seriously???? Surely, nobody eats like that!!!!

Well maybe she does





Sorry

adouglasmhor

ILW wrote: »

I would suspect you a pretty rare in that.

The vast majority that say they want to loose weight are not prepared to sacrifice anything and are just pulled in by an industry that the "promises" you can eat all you like and still lose weight. In most cases that is just not the case.

For most of the world feeling a little peckish is something you live with and get used to. rather than immediately stuffing your face.

It wasn't by much to be honest I was eating 1400 calories most days, (then on the odd day over 3000) but it was pretty constant and I had been doing it for years. Now I am eating between 2,300 and 2,700 on non fast days, with a very rare overdoing it bit.
A lot of my fat was round my gut, I had moobs and before I took up excercise I had internal fat round the organs, which went first before I changed my eating habits, I had a liver biopsy which checked that as a possible symptom of damage(I had a fatty liver due to HepC so I do get monitored.).
I keep an online food diary to keep track.

breadlinebetty

posh*spice wrote: »

Well maybe she does





Sorry

That is tragic!

I don't believe she just eats too much - she has an eating disorder.

It's actually very sad.

adouglasmhor

wotsthat wrote: »

Calories consumed > calories used = weight gain

I once attended a lecture by Dr. Ian Campbell who, used to be, the chair of the national obesity forum. He recognised that whilst there were genetic disorders, hormonal issues etc. that might make weight loss more difficult there isn't a human being on the planet defying the basic rules of thermodynamics.

His theory was that people cope differently with hunger. Give someone a meal and an hour later there will be some who will be thinking about having a bag of crisps, some who won't give food a thought until the next day and some who will be ready to tear down the door to macdonalds to get a quarter pounder. The person not thinking about hunger will be more likely to stay slim - the macdonalds ram-raider will need heightened willpower and make better food choices to stay slim.

National obesity forum are a self appointed charity, fair enough they are mostly health care profesionals. But they are not the only school of thought or people doing research on the subject.

Calories consumed > calories used = weight gain is true.
but Calories used is can be affected by Calories consumed and what sort of food they are from as can Calories Consumed - some foods cause people to be hungry faster, some make you turgid and inactive, some cause fat to be deposited and muscle to be burned, the calories in calories out has been touted for years and we are still seeing an obesity epedemic. It's not enough on it's own.

Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
― Albert Einstein

wotsthat

aliasojo wrote: »

By the end of the prog and after travelling to speak to experts in the field, she was forced to accept that she was wrong and her slim figure was a result of her good fortune in her hormonal dept. It was medically proved to her that fatter people have different levels of two particular hormones which affected hunger and feelings of fullness.

Ian Campbell was definitely of the view that obesity be treated as a disease.

I must admit I was much less sympathetic to this view. We all know plenty of people who'd love to be able to say "it's my hormones and you're just lucky to be slim" as they watch Eastenders and eating a packet of chocolate hob nobs whilst their thin friend goes for a 5 mile run. A different response to hunger isn't really an excuse for poor choices.

aliasojo

wotsthat wrote: »

Ian Campbell was definitely of the view that obesity be treated as a disease.

I must admit I was much less sympathetic to this view. We all know plenty of people who'd love to be able to say "it's my hormones and you're just lucky to be slim" as they watch Eastenders and eating a packet of chocolate hob nobs whilst their thin friend goes for a 5 mile run. A different response to hunger isn't really an excuse for poor choices.

Oh I agree. People shouldn't be able to use this type of info as a get out of jail free card. It does not absolve them of self responsibility.

However, I do feel it explains why some do feel constantly hungry and why they tend to crave higher carb type foods compared to those with normal levels of these particular hormones. It makes it so much more difficult to make those good choices that others make without a second thought.

Loughton_Monkey

breadlinebetty wrote: »

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

Oh dear! Are you related to Graham Devon in an way?

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

If I said that the workload of an Accident & Emergency department is to do with the medical health of the nation and the number of accidents, that doesn't correlate medical health with accidents.

breadlinebetty wrote: »

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!

Which part of "and/or" do you not understand, then?

breadlinebetty wrote: »

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!!

...sigh.... "seem?"

In your eyes possibly. I simply do not equate intelligence with education at all. I don't even mention educated until talking about the researchers. I am fully aware that you can be intelligent but uneducated, or educated but unintelligent. I choose my words very carefully, and I was assuming researchers etc. would be 'intelligent' enough to work at their jobs, but 'uneducated' in terms of the statistical knowledge required to understand that words like 'correlation' do not mean 'cause and effect'.

breadlinebetty wrote: »

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.

READ MY POST AGAIN. I think you are the only one getting confused. I am saying that basic intelligence has an effect on wealth. I'm saying responsible behaviour has an effect on wealth. I'm also saying basic intelligence has an effect on health. I'm saying responsible behaviour has an effect on health.

breadlinebetty wrote: »

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!

These are your own prejudiced words. Let me simplify what I said:

Intelligence and/or reasonable behaviour tends to mean you get a better career and more money.

Intelligence and/or responsible behaviour tends to mean you eat better, don't get fat, look after your health....

Hence there is a correlation between wealth and good health.

But a correlation does not mean cause and effect, which is why throwing money at poor people doesn't make them healthier.

People who are young, agile, and affluent might tend to join an expensive health club. People who are young, strong, and affluent might tend to be popular with the opposite sex. You might expect, therefore, to see a positive correlation between health club membership and a vigorous social life. So all I'm saying is don't sign up an old, arthritic, poor person to a health club and expect that to make him/her more attractive to the opposite sex. Sounds obvious to most, I expect.

CLAPTON

breadlinebetty wrote: »

Some vegetables contain small traces of protein, but as the average adult need approximately 50grams of protein a day, and a normal portion of vegetables contain around just 1 gram of protein, you'd have to stuff your face with a whole load of vegetables to get your necessary protein intake!

protein

portion of new potatos...... 4-5 grms
123 grams of beans ...........9.6 gms
100 grm portion of rice........9 grms
150 grm portion of noodles...7.5gmrs
100 grm portion of lentils.....7.6grms
100 grms of peanuts ...........20 grms

of course many people who avoid meat will eat eggs, cheeses or fish but even without those it is easily possible to devise a daily diet with 50 grms of protein.

I'm not a vegan or even a vegggie so I don't know a 'typical' type daily diet but it's pretty easy to see how you can have a decent diet.

Of course in the context of obesity one might take the view that non meat produces have less fat and protein is an advantage.

Saturnalia

breadlinebetty wrote: »

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

I've done it a couple of times, but I can be too disorganised to get an order in before I realise the fridge is bare. If you could get same-day delivery I'd be laughing.

Besides, delivery wouldn't be any cheaper, if I have a day without work shopping doesn't eat up too much of my time, and if I'm honest I enjoy the exercise of the walk home. Easier than getting bags onto a crowded bus with no luggage space anyway!