A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

stunned at link between income and obesity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 20th, 2005, 07:55 PM
Stacey Bender
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rich wrote:
Maximize calories/dollar seems rational when on a budget.


Do you think that is the conscious thought process though?


Most economic forces aren't. In this case the drive is not to be hungry.
Which foods do that the cheapest? Fat and sugar? Which foods are
convenient and tastey? Fast foods. It's so rational it's painful.

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.


Education in this case will pretty much tell you you can't afford to eat
better than you are for the same money.
  #12  
Old April 20th, 2005, 07:56 PM
Stacey Bender
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


No fruits or veggies in your list and those are what are associated with
health.
  #13  
Old April 20th, 2005, 07:57 PM
Stacey Bender
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David wrote:
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.


Drive to other places and you'll see very little fresh lettuce and it
will cost a fortune. My lettuce at safeway cost a $1.99 per head.
Tomatoes are very expensive too.
  #14  
Old April 20th, 2005, 07:58 PM
Stacey Bender
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RK wrote:
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.


Some people smoke and are just fine too. It's good to be you, at least
in this way.
  #15  
Old April 20th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Matthew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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?

I eat about 15 servings (1/2 cup) of fruit, 30 servings (1 cup) of
leafy green vegetables, and 20 servings (1/2 cup) of other vegetables
each week. The only prices I remember from last week were the really
good ones: 10 oranges for $1 and cabbage at .25/lb.

Eating fast food on limited income is actually the
mostrational thing to do.

Perhaps for certain variations on the word rational.


Maximize calories/dollar seems rational when on a budget.


And eating only the calories necessary seems rational when on a
budget. And eating affordable food that actually tastes good seems
rational at any income level.

I let it slide the first time, but how do you figure fast food has the
highest calorie/dollar ratio. How much a do potatoes cost where you
are? Rice? Beans? Eggs? Whole milk?

Matthew


  #16  
Old April 20th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stacey Bender" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:
Maximize calories/dollar seems rational when on a budget.


Do you think that is the conscious thought process though?


Most economic forces aren't. In this case the drive is not to be hungry.
Which foods do that the cheapest? Fat and sugar? Which foods are
convenient and tastey? Fast foods. It's so rational it's painful.


You're describing an impulse purchase, rationality is lost on impulses

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.


Education in this case will pretty much tell you you can't afford to eat
better than you are for the same money.


I disagree, read the examples others have posted.


  #17  
Old April 20th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Rod & Betty Jo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

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 true at all....our local grocery has head of lettuce for less than a
dollar or a 3lb bag pre cut for less than $2....our local produce market has
oranges for 33cents a lb and apples at 39 cents lb. and banana's for 38
cents a lb..... and/or one can go down to my freezer and get home frozen in
season berries, peaches etc...but filling the freezer does require
effort...... Even basic (broc, cauliflower, spinach, corn, peas etc.) store
bought frozen vegs are not particularly expensive.

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.


Or make your own hamburger or fast food item for 1/3 the cost.....
regretably although far from all "poor" people are a bit lazy.....Rod


  #18  
Old April 20th, 2005, 09:08 PM
Nicky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


I can't believe that $42k is your poverty line. That's pretty well the
average wage in the UK, so most Britains are managing on that kind of family
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.


Well, let's see. I made turkey tortilla wraps for supper tonight; I used a
package of high-carb wraps plus 2 low-carb ones, total cost about £1. A head
of lettuce, an apple, a few sticks of celery, a red onion and some home-made
yoghurt must have cost maybe 50p more. The turkey cost £2.50, but I stole a
big piece out for the kids' packed lunch tomorrow (pasta salad). So for
around £1 a head, I got 4 main meals plus 2 kid-size lunches.

The problem with being poor is not particularly that good food is
unobtainable - I've been there, and the real issue is that good food from
good ingredients takes such a lot of time. You have to source the
ingredients (either by shopping around, or even growing them), then cheap
meats often need long, slow cooking. If you're working full-time, it's way
too easy just to take the line of least resistance and go for fast food.

It's much easier to make savings if you have a little bit more of a
cushion..

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/6 Weight 95/76/72Kg
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004


  #19  
Old April 20th, 2005, 09:24 PM
Anon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nicky, they didn't say that 42K was the poverty line. It says 42K is the
middle income, with 50% below that figure, there are a lot of families
living on that amount. It all depends where you live. A single on 42K would
be near the poverty line in CA or HI but could live high on the hog in TX or
AL on that amount.

Anon

"Nicky" wrote in message
...

"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.


I can't believe that $42k is your poverty line. That's pretty well the
average wage in the UK, so most Britains are managing on that kind of
family 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.


Well, let's see. I made turkey tortilla wraps for supper tonight; I used a
package of high-carb wraps plus 2 low-carb ones, total cost about £1. A
head of lettuce, an apple, a few sticks of celery, a red onion and some
home-made yoghurt must have cost maybe 50p more. The turkey cost £2.50,
but I stole a big piece out for the kids' packed lunch tomorrow (pasta
salad). So for around £1 a head, I got 4 main meals plus 2 kid-size
lunches.

The problem with being poor is not particularly that good food is
unobtainable - I've been there, and the real issue is that good food from
good ingredients takes such a lot of time. You have to source the
ingredients (either by shopping around, or even growing them), then cheap
meats often need long, slow cooking. If you're working full-time, it's way
too easy just to take the line of least resistance and go for fast food.

It's much easier to make savings if you have a little bit more of a
cushion..

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/6 Weight 95/76/72Kg
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004



  #20  
Old April 20th, 2005, 09:38 PM
Nicky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Anon" wrote in message
...
Nicky, they didn't say that 42K was the poverty line. It says 42K is the
middle income, with 50% below that figure, there are a lot of families
living on that amount. It all depends where you live. A single on 42K
would be near the poverty line in CA or HI but could live high on the hog
in TX or AL on that amount.


Right - but presumably you've got a similar bell-curve distribution to the
UK, so a Pareto analysis says 80% of people have something like that income.
I just don't believe it's not possible for most of your population to eat
reasonably on that amount of money!

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/6 Weight 95/76/72Kg
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arkansas School Children at Obesity Risk Roman Bystrianyk General Discussion 4 September 10th, 2004 02:02 AM
Tobacco Use and Obesity Hit Least Educated, Lowest Income Americans Hardest Neutron Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 June 1st, 2004 09:31 PM
Tobacco Use and Obesity Hit Least Educated, Lowest Income Americans Hardest Neutron Weightwatchers 3 June 1st, 2004 07:43 PM
IRS declares obesity a disease That T Woman General Discussion 13 December 6th, 2003 03:53 AM
Political Causes of Obesity FOB Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 October 20th, 2003 10:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.