stunned at link between income and obesity
 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3854505

This was a very interesting program. I hadn't really thought about the
link between money and diet before, but it makes sense.

If you earn less than 42K/year, which 50% of the US does, you have
$4/day for food.

How can you possibly eat health for that little? You can't. A head of
lettuce is about $2. Fruit and veggies, even if available, are not
purchasable at that income.

So what are you left with? Fast food, where you can get enough calories
for the money. Eating fast food on limitted income is actually the most
rational thing to do.

Matthew wrote:
Not where I shop. I can buy a weeks worth of fruits and vegetables for
less than $15. Lucky me.

If you don't eat any i could buy a years worth for $0/year :-) More
informative would be where do you live and what are your prices per pound?

Eating fast food on limited income is actually the

most

rational thing to do.


Perhaps for certain variations on the word rational.

Maximize calories/dollar seems rational when on a budget.

Stacey Bender wrote in message
...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3854505

This was a very interesting program. I hadn't really thought about
the
link between money and diet before, but it makes sense.

If you earn less than 42K/year, which 50% of the US does, you have
$4/day for food.

Why would you need to limit your food budget to 3.5% of income?

How can you possibly eat health for that little? You can't. A head
of
lettuce is about $2. Fruit and veggies, even if available, are not
purchasable at that income.

Not where I shop. I can buy a weeks worth of fruits and vegetables for
less than $15. Lucky me.

So what are you left with? Fast food, where you can get enough
calories
for the money. Eating fast food on limited income is actually the
most
rational thing to do.

Perhaps for certain variations on the word rational.

Matthew

"Stacey Bender" wrote in message
...
Matthew wrote:
Not where I shop. I can buy a weeks worth of fruits and vegetables for
less than $15. Lucky me.

If you don't eat any i could buy a years worth for $0/year :-) More
informative would be where do you live and what are your prices per pound?

Eating fast food on limited income is actually the

most

rational thing to do.


Perhaps for certain variations on the word rational.

Maximize calories/dollar seems rational when on a budget.

Do you think that is the conscious thought process though? I haven't
listened to the segment in the link but maybe income is related to
education, and educated people make better choices? Just a thought.

There is no cheaper and easier to prepare food than bread and/or pasta.
And soda is pretty cheap too, often cheaper than milk.

TC

Stacey Bender wrote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3854505

This was a very interesting program. I hadn't really thought about
the
link between money and diet before, but it makes sense.

If you earn less than 42K/year, which 50% of the US does, you have
$4/day for food.

How can you possibly eat health for that little? You can't. A head of

lettuce is about $2. Fruit and veggies, even if available, are not
purchasable at that income.

So what are you left with? Fast food, where you can get enough
calories
for the money. Eating fast food on limitted income is actually the
most
rational thing to do.

I'm in northern California where everything costs more, and our lettuce
is usually $.99. I don't think it's "rationale" for anyone to eat a lot
of fast food.

Dave

Stacey Bender wrote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3854505

This was a very interesting program. I hadn't really thought about the
link between money and diet before, but it makes sense.

If you earn less than 42K/year, which 50% of the US does, you have
$4/day for food.

How can you possibly eat health for that little? You can't. A head of
lettuce is about $2. Fruit and veggies, even if available, are not
purchasable at that income.

So what are you left with? Fast food, where you can get enough calories
for the money. Eating fast food on limitted income is actually the most
rational thing to do.

oops! I think I meant "rational".

D I don't think it's "rationale" for anyone to eat a lot

I just went to the market last night (after yelling at me for a week, lol
i'm bad)
anyhow.. a head of Lettuce was $1.17 in Central Ohio. Now tomatoes were
$2.96 for 3 midsized ones.

I agree.. about the fast food.. I know I certainly need to lay off it. But
when
the kid isn't home.. and hubbys just worked 18hrs and I can't stand more
then
10mins.. it's much easier for him to pick up something on the way home. Why
all my labs are good but my trigs and hdl because I can't exercise and eat
too
much fast food, lol and yet I'm not overweight. go figure.

RK, t1

"David" wrote in message
...
I'm in northern California where everything costs more, and our lettuce is
usually $.99. I don't think it's "rationale" for anyone to eat a lot of
fast food.

Dave

Stacey Bender wrote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3854505

This was a very interesting program. I hadn't really thought about the
link between money and diet before, but it makes sense.

If you earn less than 42K/year, which 50% of the US does, you have $4/day
for food.

How can you possibly eat health for that little? You can't. A head of
lettuce is about $2. Fruit and veggies, even if available, are not
purchasable at that income.

So what are you left with? Fast food, where you can get enough calories
for the money. Eating fast food on limitted income is actually the most
rational thing to do.

I would have agreed with you before but not anymore. Some of the fast food
places have gotten a lot more healthy lately. I now eat at Wendy's 3-5 times
a week. I usually get a grilled chicken sandwich combo with a side salad
vice French fries, and a diet coke. Sometimes, as a treat, I get a
cheeseburger with a side salad. With the addition of salads rather than
French fries it is not that unhealthy. I am amazed at the quality of the
salad at my local Wendy's. They are crisper and fresher than I could get a
Vons across the parking lot. It is the high quality salad that keeps me
coming back.

As a plus, Wendy's gives a 10% senior citizen discount. That makes it a real
bargain for an old widow living on a fixed income who is too lazy to cook.

Anon

"David" wrote in message
...

snip

I don't think it's "rationale" for anyone to eat a lot
of fast food.

Dave

Stacey Bender wrote:

Ignoramus14555 wrote:
Great question! But is fast food the only choice for poor people? For
example, cabbage is a very cheap vegetables, and it has a lot of
vitamins etc.

Cabbage tastes horrible. Sorry. It looks especially shabby against a
hamburger, fries, and drink.

Convenience and palatability are part of the equation as well.

With a little bit of shopping, meat is also not that
expensive (think chicken, etc, can be had for 39-60 cents per lb).

Less convenient so less likely to happen.

Bread and potatoes are not that expensive. Fast food is much more
expensive than many alternatives.

Potatoes are almost 50% of the veggies consumed.


For about $1, you can eat a pound of potatoes and a pound of chicken.
Rice and bread cost next to nothing.

Notice no fruits and veggies in your list? I don't really count potatoes
as a veggie, specially since i can't have them.


A comparable amount of fast food would be much more expensive.

$2.99 for a good hamburger, fries, and drink. It tastes a lot better
than your suggestion. It is far more convenient. And it is far more
effective on a dollar/calorie basis.

Poor third worlders do not live on fast food.

When they get the option they will.