71–80 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are the highest income spenders ? I'm reminded of the Seinfeld reservation bit ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2GmGSNvaM ).
I don't quite understand your point or its connection here. What are you arguing?
Analogously, taking a reservation is pointless. Holding the reservation is the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Beans and grains are cheap. Side note: grains are not a healthy food.
Whole grains aren't unhealthy as part of a balanced diet. Bread or rice makes vegetables more palatable, adds some protein, carbs, fiber, and minerals. Carbs are vital if you're doing physical labor. Grains are more calorie dense than veggies, cheaper, and store longer, than veggies - all big pluses for low-income households.
Physical labor usually means long duration but low intensity exercise, which you can do just as well on a fat-based diet. Carbs only improve performance for short duration high intensity exercise (e.g. sprinting/weight lifting).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Beans and grains are cheap. Side note: grains are not a healthy food.
Whole grains aren't unhealthy as part of a balanced diet. Bread or rice makes vegetables more palatable, adds some protein, carbs, fiber, and minerals. Carbs are vital if you're doing physical labor. Grains are more calorie dense than veggies, cheaper, and store longer, than veggies - all big pluses for low-income households.
Actually, carbs are the only macro-nutrient your body can completely do without.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> convenience plays a big role No government regulation should be imposed on the country as a whole so that some people can find things more convenient. If people can't be bothered to put some effort into being healthy, I'm not sure why I should care if the "gap between rich and poor American's health is widening" or not. Edited to remove judgement.
You may have missed other parts of this conversation where people point out how corporate interests have had great success in getting the government to promote and subsidize unhealthy foods (see: corn subsidies, the food pyramid, subpar food labelling, cheap junk food in public schools). The government (at various levels) should certainly have a role in ensuring a healthy population. But if nothing else, the governme…
Lifestyle choices are not a function of government even if those choices result in shortened lifespans, poor health, poverty, or other "negative" outcomes. These are not externalities and are no business of society. You might say that sick people cost the society money. But the answer to that is not that people are sick, it's that someone has decided to spend money on those people. Of course this approach doesn't put more power into the hands of control freaks, so it'll constantly be fought.
> But if nothing else, the government (at all levels) should be sure not to promote and fund profoundly unhealthy habits over healthy ones.
Agreed. Government should not feed false information to the people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unhealthy foods are cheaper than healthy foods, partially due to sugar subsidies. This is what happens when corporations run the government. They lobby for things that are beneficial to their bottom line rather than what's better for the well being of the population.
Processed unhealthy foods are cheaper than processed healthy(er) foods. Beans and grains are cheap. Staple fruits and vegetables are cheap. Chicken is cheap (especially dark meat). Eggs are cheap. You can feed a family of 4 a very healthy diet for ~$100 a month if you're willing to put in the work sourcing and cooking. That's the crux of the issue, though. Food deserts combined with a lack of nutritional and culinary…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Processed unhealthy foods are cheaper than processed healthy(er) foods. Beans and grains are cheap. Staple fruits and vegetables are cheap. Chicken is cheap (especially dark meat). Eggs are cheap. You can feed a family of 4 a very healthy diet for ~$100 a month if you're willing to put in the work sourcing and cooking. That's the crux of the issue, though. Food deserts combined with a lack of nutritional and culinary…
I have a few friends on the poverty line. They all live in houses and apartments without access to a working kitchen. Many rented rooms don't come with kitchen "privileges." In addition they work 60+ hours a week making time consuming food preparation less practical. The result is a lot of cheap pre-packaged food and fast food.
Some folks work ludicrous hours per week at multiple jobs. Telling them to put in more effort in shopping, exercise, cooking, and dishes is missing the problem entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's "cheap" if your labor is valued. I imagine the relationship between health consequences and income could somewhat be related to having multiple jobs, long hours, and being too tired to prioritize health after a long day. That fast food looks quick, convenient and affordable when you're going from one job to another and don't have much time or the additional money to spend on healthier fast casual eating options.…
Most poor people eat out with a fraction of the frequency of richer people. Its finding the time and motivation to burn the calories you consume that's the hard part.
Regarding weight: it's more practical to limit calorie consumption than "burn" them through exercise. An hour of high-intensity cardio might only burn 200 calories. Eating less calories is easier. To get some volume, generous portions of fibrous vegetable help-- so your stomach doesn't feel empty.
Unpopular hypothesis: Executive function is causally correlated with health and wealth.
For the overwhelming majority of heavy hitting chronic diseases (Diabetes T2, Obesity, Heart Attacks, even likely cancer). They are completely preventable though diet and other lifestyle changes.
Good food, grass fed meat, fish and fresh vegetables aren't that expensive people could afford it if they thought it was an actual priority. For those suffering from weight problems (In the UK the obesity rate is 27%! [1] Not even the overweight) I'd recommend for them to cut down on their frequency of meals and ensure that the one or two meals they have are healthy (Very low fructose, nutrient dense, keeps insulin low e.t.c.)
It's the same with exercising, a gym membership isn't that much money cheap gyms exist. But you don't even need any money to do some simple body weight exercises, depending on what you do and your fitness level it can literally take 10 minutes.
So it's not a lack of time or money for anyone but the absolute poorest, people just don't seem to care that much. I really don't know why ?
[1] https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publication/0/0/obes-phys-acti-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most poor people eat out with a fraction of the frequency of richer people. Its finding the time and motivation to burn the calories you consume that's the hard part.
And when not eating out, your fastest, most affordable option is processed foods, typically high in carbs and low in micronutrients. It's poor quality food. Regarding weight: it's more practical to limit calorie consumption than "burn" them through exercise. An hour of high-intensity cardio might only burn 200 calories. Eating less calories is easier. To get some volume, generous portions of fibrous vegetable help--…
And making the broccoli is almost as convenient: you can get microwaveable bags that you just zap for x amount of time, empty into a bowl with some butter, add salt, mix and enjoy. Two minutes of actual effort, 10 minutes total time.
I think a lot of it has to do with the way we arrange food in stores, profit margins for food producing businesses, availability (you can't usually get frozen broccoli at a gas station), what food gets marketed, etc. Really if you put even a small amount of effort in getting veggies to taste good they taste as good as most junk food and processed food. It may never taste as good as spicy cheese flavored corn chips but is still pretty good