Article - Bad Fitness / Gym Sayings
Options
senecarr
Posts: 5,377 Member
ca.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding/stupid-gym-sayings.htmlStupid Gym Sayings
Exposing Stupid Gym Sayings
50% of what needs to be pointed out here regularly on MFP.
0
Replies
-
"I hate this one. Saying “eat less, move more” to an overweight person is like saying “spend less, earn more” to someone living in crushing poverty. "
No, it's like saying spend less, earn more, to a flake who doesn't budget. *rolls eyes*0 -
Funny stuff.
Should add the "muscle weighs more than fat" that people say when explaining why the scale might not budge when losing fat. Muscle's density is irrelevant there.
0 -
I am 100% on board with "Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels." It's a total lie. Yet I see it posted over and over on these message boards.
ETA: I mean I'm on board with it being stupid.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »"I hate this one. Saying “eat less, move more” to an overweight person is like saying “spend less, earn more” to someone living in crushing poverty. "
No, it's like saying spend less, earn more, to a flake who doesn't budget. *rolls eyes*
I get what you're saying and I agree with you.
My problem with "Eat less, move more" is that it's so general as to be useful. How much less? How much more? It's possible to follow this advice and continue to gain weight, or starve yourself.
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »"I hate this one. Saying “eat less, move more” to an overweight person is like saying “spend less, earn more” to someone living in crushing poverty. "
No, it's like saying spend less, earn more, to a flake who doesn't budget. *rolls eyes*
I feel the poverty analogy is pretty apt. Poverty and weight are both highly influenced by what environment you had in childhood. Both can create negative feedback loops and require untangling a lot of relations. Both involve boot strapping issues - being poor means you lack the credit, time, and funds to get the resources that lead to having more credit, time, and funds, while being overweight leads to lacking the energy to eat better and move more.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »"I hate this one. Saying “eat less, move more” to an overweight person is like saying “spend less, earn more” to someone living in crushing poverty. "
No, it's like saying spend less, earn more, to a flake who doesn't budget. *rolls eyes*
I get what you're saying and I agree with you.
My problem with "Eat less, move more" is that it's so general as to be useful. How much less? How much more? It's possible to follow this advice and continue to gain weight, or starve yourself.
That's why you have places like this that help you figure out your calorie budget, just as there are programs like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey who help you figure out your financial budget.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »"I hate this one. Saying “eat less, move more” to an overweight person is like saying “spend less, earn more” to someone living in crushing poverty. "
No, it's like saying spend less, earn more, to a flake who doesn't budget. *rolls eyes*
I feel the poverty analogy is pretty apt. Poverty and weight are both highly influenced by what environment you had in childhood. Both can create negative feedback loops and require untangling a lot of relations. Both involve boot strapping issues - being poor means you lack the credit, time, and funds to get the resources that lead to having more credit, time, and funds, while being overweight leads to lacking the energy to eat better and move more.
To be below poverty line, you must be working less than fulltime or have more than one child without anyone paying child support. And in that second case, you would be eligible for so much financial assistance that you would, once again, be above the poverty line.
Being poor over the course of several years is harder than you think.
Few people are below poverty line for a long time, and when they are, it's because they keep quitting or getting fired or no one will hire them in the first place. Barring disability, the last is usually due (over the long term, not a year or two) to very simple things. Like acting the fool during an interview or neck tatts or a serious rap sheet. What almost always happens to people who stay below the poverty line is that they keep getting their butts fired or simply stop showing up for work.
(This is ignoring the not inconsiderable percentage of people below poverty line on paper whose primary income is actually black market labor.)0 -
I think all of those sayings are fine except the one that advocates drugs.
Some people might be too soft to hear it, but I think having something to draw on when you hurt or when you want to give up, or cop out with "good enough" is powerful. What does it take to get the mindset of a competitor? I don't think it's an intellectual treatise on nutrition or some touchy geeky crap
But to each their own right?0 -
First, I imagine you're assuming full time is being paid minimum wage, see as the poverty line is defined in dollars, not work hours.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »To be below poverty line, you must be working less than fulltime or have more than one child without anyone paying child support.
Second, you're assuming working full time is particularly easy to achieve when you're poor and could have any number of issues just arriving to work.
Third, the poverty line varies by county, so you can't really make that blanket statement.
Fourth, you're assuming my idea of poverty is directly tied to the poverty line.
Fifth, you're assuming people with more than one child with no child support (coming in, not just ordered) are rare. Not to mention, once in this situation, there are clearly at least 3 people who are in poverty.
This is a lot of assumptionsMamaBirdBoss wrote: »And in that second case, you would be eligible for so much financial assistance that you would, once again, be above the poverty line.
Social workers boot people off the system all the time.
Many states have limits on how long in a life time you can receive assistance.
Many states cancel assistance if you have anything they deem a "luxury good", such as having more than 2,000 in savings (such much for rainy day funds, education to improve employ-ability funds, having a cushion to avoid having to use payday loans with ridiculous interest rates), or a relatively decent condition car.
You're making a lot of assumptions about why people quit or get fired.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Being poor over the course of several years is harder than you think.
Few people are below poverty line for a long time, and when they are, it's because they keep quitting or getting fired or no one will hire them in the first place.
And for the disabled?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Barring disability, the last is usually due (over the long term, not a year or two) to very simple things.
I wouldn't claim having a rap sheet is something completely unrelated to poverty. Again, being poor is a huge cost, not just less income. When you can't afford an attorney to get a charge dismissed, one poor kid's walking across the wrong lawn can have a worse criminal record outcome than a rich teen's drunk driving accident. Honestly, I find the language used rather judgmental of a whole class of people.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Like acting the fool during an interview or neck tatts or a serious rap sheet. What almost always happens to people who stay below the poverty line is that they keep getting their butts fired or simply stop showing up for work.
What I see? I feel the stated view of poverty is one that being poor is just a scaled income difference from being out of poverty. This ignores the poverty is a negative feedback system. Being poor is actually very expensive. Not just in raw fiscal terms, but in terms of opportunity costs. Poor people tend not to have sick time - they lose out on treating illness early. Similarly, poor health leads to disabilities, including ones that may not be recognized on paper. Being poor means you may rely on public transit which means there are certain jobs that are unavailable because of hours or the place won't hire people without "reliable transportation". Being poor means you're more likely to be targeted by police and less likely to receive sentencing that leaves you with no criminal record.0 -
I didn't see this on the list, but I don't like it either. "A minute on the lips, forever on the hips", my dad would say that to me whenever I ate something even to this day.0
-
First, I imagine you're assuming full time is being paid minimum wage, see as the poverty line is defined in dollars, not work hours.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »To be below poverty line, you must be working less than fulltime or have more than one child without anyone paying child support.
Second, you're assuming working full time is particularly easy to achieve when you're poor and could have any number of issues just arriving to work.
Third, the poverty line varies by county, so you can't really make that blanket statement.
Fourth, you're assuming my idea of poverty is directly tied to the poverty line.
Fifth, you're assuming people with more than one child with no child support (coming in, not just ordered) are rare. Not to mention, once in this situation, there are clearly at least 3 people who are in poverty.
This is a lot of assumptionsMamaBirdBoss wrote: »And in that second case, you would be eligible for so much financial assistance that you would, once again, be above the poverty line.
Social workers boot people off the system all the time.
Many states have limits on how long in a life time you can receive assistance.
Many states cancel assistance if you have anything they deem a "luxury good", such as having more than 2,000 in savings (such much for rainy day funds, education to improve employ-ability funds, having a cushion to avoid having to use payday loans with ridiculous interest rates), or a relatively decent condition car.
You're making a lot of assumptions about why people quit or get fired.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Being poor over the course of several years is harder than you think.
Few people are below poverty line for a long time, and when they are, it's because they keep quitting or getting fired or no one will hire them in the first place.
And for the disabled?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Barring disability, the last is usually due (over the long term, not a year or two) to very simple things.
I wouldn't claim having a rap sheet is something completely unrelated to poverty. Again, being poor is a huge cost, not just less income. When you can't afford an attorney to get a charge dismissed, one poor kid's walking across the wrong lawn can have a worse criminal record outcome than a rich teen's drunk driving accident. Honestly, I find the language used rather judgmental of a whole class of people.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Like acting the fool during an interview or neck tatts or a serious rap sheet. What almost always happens to people who stay below the poverty line is that they keep getting their butts fired or simply stop showing up for work.
What I see? I feel the stated view of poverty is one that being poor is just a scaled income difference from being out of poverty. This ignores the poverty is a negative feedback system. Being poor is actually very expensive. Not just in raw fiscal terms, but in terms of opportunity costs. Poor people tend not to have sick time - they lose out on treating illness early. Similarly, poor health leads to disabilities, including ones that may not be recognized on paper. Being poor means you may rely on public transit which means there are certain jobs that are unavailable because of hours or the place won't hire people without "reliable transportation". Being poor means you're more likely to be targeted by police and less likely to receive sentencing that leaves you with no criminal record.
First, fulltime is being paid minimum wage, by law. If you're here illegally, that's your first issue.
Second, it is quite possible if you want to do it. Millions and millions do and have.
Third, it doesn't, not legally.
Fourth, poverty has several legal definitions, and I'm working within the most generous of those.
Fifth, no, I'm not. I'm assuming that if they're single parents with a ton of kids they're eligible for assistance...which they are.
Technically, yes, you're "in poverty" if you make 16k a year with 3 kids and get 35k a year additionally in benefits because our system is whacked. Practically, you're not.
Assistance for children isn't limited by those things. Assistance for able-bodied singles (who are therefore NOT working FT, or else they wouldn't be poor) is limited.
MOST people who are disabled also work. I have two different conditions for which I would qualify for SSI disability--in fact, with one of them, the vast majority choose to go on SSI.
That aside, the poverty line is $11,770 for an individual living alone. (Note: This is the worst-case scenario.) Once you're on disability, you're no longer subject to lifetime limits for other benefits, so you get $2328 in SNAP per year plus the $8,657 in disability, and you're up to $10985 already. Add in housing benefits, and you're over, too. It's not a *comfortable* life, but it's over the threshold.
(Some people who are on disability are disabled, yes, but simply choose not to work when they could. My brother is one. I even hired him in my own business, but because he was so insanely lazy and sloppy on absurdly easy tasks that I grossly overpaid him for, I had to fire him. And yes, it was absolutely his choice. He believed that he was entitled to a comfortable life just for breathing and that having to do anything to earn it is an injustice. My parents are his enablers.)
A few spots on a criminal record isn't going to keep you from getting a job. Violent felonies will make it much harder.
I actually come from a not-so-great neighborhood. That is why I'm not very sympathetic. The in-and-out-of-work moochers who tried to drag their families down with them were totally below the poverty line. The ones who worked weren't. They managed to make it to work every day even when their idiot relative wrecked their car. When they lost a job, they busted their butts until they found another. The moochers were also the ones in and out of jail (for getting into stupid fights and for petty, stupid criminal behavior.) They were also the ones to make the neighborhood worse to live in.
Increasing access to healthcare doesn't actually change the health outcomes of the poor. Why not? Because they didn't have "not enough access" to begin with. It's a nonexistent barrier. What happens instead is that they choose lifestyles in terms of diet and behaviors that lead to the increase in conditions. One of my good, good friend just breaks my heart because he has alllllll kinds of horrible things happen to him and his family, and it all comes back down to bad health decisions long before anyone got sick with anything. It's insanely frustrating to see his life threatened by these things--even though he DOES work hard, he and his family have really terrible habits that they can't seem to see clearly. He's now technically just above the poverty line because his ill health makes it harder for him to work, and he refuses to go on disability. Great, great guy. Love him to death. Breaks my heart.
I had a friend who had seizures and low education. He walked to work 5 miles each way because public transportation didn't line up with his schedule and he wasn't legally allowed to drive because his seizure meds couldn't fully control his seizures. He lived with someone else because he was making only a little more than minimum wage--unfortunately, that was because he had a VERY abrasive personality which made him ineligible for management even at the fast food place, which totally sucked. I couldn't convince him that seeming less like a jerk (he REALLY wasn't!) would be worth it, though.
People who care find a way. They do.-1 -
First, I imagine you're assuming full time is being paid minimum wage, see as the poverty line is defined in dollars, not work hours.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »To be below poverty line, you must be working less than fulltime or have more than one child without anyone paying child support.
Second, you're assuming working full time is particularly easy to achieve when you're poor and could have any number of issues just arriving to work.
Third, the poverty line varies by county, so you can't really make that blanket statement.
Fourth, you're assuming my idea of poverty is directly tied to the poverty line.
Fifth, you're assuming people with more than one child with no child support (coming in, not just ordered) are rare. Not to mention, once in this situation, there are clearly at least 3 people who are in poverty.
This is a lot of assumptionsMamaBirdBoss wrote: »And in that second case, you would be eligible for so much financial assistance that you would, once again, be above the poverty line.
Social workers boot people off the system all the time.
Many states have limits on how long in a life time you can receive assistance.
Many states cancel assistance if you have anything they deem a "luxury good", such as having more than 2,000 in savings (such much for rainy day funds, education to improve employ-ability funds, having a cushion to avoid having to use payday loans with ridiculous interest rates), or a relatively decent condition car.
You're making a lot of assumptions about why people quit or get fired.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Being poor over the course of several years is harder than you think.
Few people are below poverty line for a long time, and when they are, it's because they keep quitting or getting fired or no one will hire them in the first place.
And for the disabled?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Barring disability, the last is usually due (over the long term, not a year or two) to very simple things.
I wouldn't claim having a rap sheet is something completely unrelated to poverty. Again, being poor is a huge cost, not just less income. When you can't afford an attorney to get a charge dismissed, one poor kid's walking across the wrong lawn can have a worse criminal record outcome than a rich teen's drunk driving accident. Honestly, I find the language used rather judgmental of a whole class of people.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Like acting the fool during an interview or neck tatts or a serious rap sheet. What almost always happens to people who stay below the poverty line is that they keep getting their butts fired or simply stop showing up for work.
What I see? I feel the stated view of poverty is one that being poor is just a scaled income difference from being out of poverty. This ignores the poverty is a negative feedback system. Being poor is actually very expensive. Not just in raw fiscal terms, but in terms of opportunity costs. Poor people tend not to have sick time - they lose out on treating illness early. Similarly, poor health leads to disabilities, including ones that may not be recognized on paper. Being poor means you may rely on public transit which means there are certain jobs that are unavailable because of hours or the place won't hire people without "reliable transportation". Being poor means you're more likely to be targeted by police and less likely to receive sentencing that leaves you with no criminal record.
Standing ovation from me, sir, standing ovation.0 -
"What's your excuse" - they're not excuses they're facts. And if a person was going to treat them as excuses they would not have walked through the gym door or joined a health club etc. why rip into them and put them off.
I was watching the season of the biggest loser labeled "no excuses" and the contestants were ridiculed for every comment they made. And the worst thing was that the attitude the trainers had was like "I'm right you're wrong, I'm big you're small..." Yes of course that's your bloody job that's what your there for to be "right" but not to throw your weight about just making them feel like s***.
In other words, where is the love?0 -
Because only immigrants are paid under the table. Just off the cuff, waitresses have a different minimum wage. Certain other occupations are exempt.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »First, fulltime is being paid minimum wage, by law. If you're here illegally, that's your first issue.
There are several people who have been to space before. Therefore, it is quite possible to go to space if you just choose to. I enumerated numerous reasons people can have problems getting employment.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Second, it is quite possible if you want to do it. Millions and millions do and have.
Legal definitions. Again, why do you assume how I define poverty?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Fourth, poverty has several legal definitions, and I'm working within the most generous of those.
I don't consider a system "whacked" if it is avoiding having children go hungry or live on the streets. I'd rather have dozens of people whackly receiving benefits someone might think they don't deserve than a child not receiving what they need.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Fifth, no, I'm not. I'm assuming that if they're single parents with a ton of kids they're eligible for assistance...which they are.
Technically, yes, you're "in poverty" if you make 16k a year with 3 kids and get 35k a year additionally in benefits because our system is whacked. Practically, you're not.
What about assistance to FAMILIES? Children don't receive TANF, adults do. They look at the family, so yes, if the family has a luxury item like a newer car received from a generous relative, or again, savings, the assistance for a family can be cancelled. The simple helps like school lunch programs wouldn't necessarily be cancelled for them, and usually health insurance.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Assistance for children isn't limited by those things. Assistance for able-bodied singles (who are therefore NOT working FT, or else they wouldn't be poor) is limited.
Nevermind that there are plenty of people that their own disability limits their capacity to apply for assistance.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MOST people who are disabled also work. I have two different conditions for which I would qualify for SSI disability--in fact, with one of them, the vast majority choose to go on SSI.
That aside, the poverty line is $11,770 for an individual living alone. (Note: This is the worst-case scenario.) Once you're on disability, you're no longer subject to lifetime limits for other benefits, so you get $2328 in SNAP per year plus the $8,657 in disability, and you're up to $10985 already. Add in housing benefits, and you're over, too. It's not a *comfortable* life, but it's over the threshold.
(Some people who are on disability are disabled, yes, but simply choose not to work when they could. My brother is one. I even hired him in my own business, but because he was so insanely lazy and sloppy on absurdly easy tasks that I grossly overpaid him for, I had to fire him. And yes, it was absolutely his choice. He believed that he was entitled to a comfortable life just for breathing and that having to do anything to earn it is an injustice. My parents are his enablers.)
You've also generally dropped th
A. Yes, one simple drug charge, or theft can disqualify you from plenty of jobs, particularly in any hard economyMamaBirdBoss wrote: »A few spots on a criminal record isn't going to keep you from getting a job. Violent felonies will make it much harder.
B. This still ignores the idea that the chances you receive a criminal record for the same or even lesser crimes has a lot to do with your income to start with.
Sounds like you're post hoc assigning people to what category they were based on if they made it or not. Still also ignoring all the chronic issues many of those people ready started out with.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I actually come from a not-so-great neighborhood. That is why I'm not very sympathetic. The in-and-out-of-work moochers who tried to drag their families down with them were totally below the poverty line. The ones who worked weren't. They managed to make it to work every day even when their idiot relative wrecked their car. When they lost a job, they busted their butts until they found another. The moochers were also the ones in and out of jail (for getting into stupid fights and for petty, stupid criminal behavior.) They were also the ones to make the neighborhood worse to live in.
Except, you're thinking the behaviors are completely separate from the poverty. And you're reducing my argument about health to getting access. Just being poor is its own health risk - take a primate under social stress, at the bottom of a hierarchy, it is a better predictor of artherscloris than diet or exercise.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Increasing access to healthcare doesn't actually change the health outcomes of the poor. Why not? Because they didn't have "not enough access" to begin with. It's a nonexistent barrier. What happens instead is that they choose lifestyles in terms of diet and behaviors that lead to the increase in conditions. One of my good, good friend just breaks my heart because he has alllllll kinds of horrible things happen to him and his family, and it all comes back down to bad health decisions long before anyone got sick with anything. It's insanely frustrating to see his life threatened by these things--even though he DOES work hard, he and his family have really terrible habits that they can't seem to see clearly. He's now technically just above the poverty line because his ill health makes it harder for him to work, and he refuses to go on disability. Great, great guy. Love him to death. Breaks my heart.
And I've known someone who was flat out told public transit was not what they company considered reliable transport. The person would not be hired for the job unless they showed a car.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I had a friend who had seizures and low education. He walked to work 5 miles each way because public transportation didn't line up with his schedule and he wasn't legally allowed to drive because his seizure meds couldn't fully control his seizures. He lived with someone else because he was making only a little more than minimum wage--unfortunately, that was because he had a VERY abrasive personality which made him ineligible for management even at the fast food place, which totally sucked. I couldn't convince him that seeming less like a jerk (he REALLY wasn't!) would be worth it, though.
People who care find a way. They do.
And here's what I'll say. Being poor is being at the bottom of a hierarchical system. It has been observed over and over that simply being in the stress of these conditions causes and exacerbates all kinds of conditions that create self perpetuating cycles. The mental effects of being poor are their own real effect on people. Just as some (most in fact) people that can't choose to be an Olympic level athlete, there are people who's conditions are such that being born in poverty means between culture and the wiring that happens from their living conditions, means they'll never get out of poverty by choice.0 -
Guys, the poverty forum is down the hall .................>
"Eat less, move more" isn't meant to be of universal help to everyone, it's for those who think that weight loss happens for reasons other than a calorie deficit.. like not eating after a certain time, avoiding certain "fattening" foods, taking the right supplement, etc. It's also for those who are so confused by all the conflicting info out there that they've lost sight of the basics and don't know how to proceed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck
Oh, and most people under 50 can eventually pull themselves out of poverty if they really, really want to really, really badly enough. Speaking from experience here.
0 -
Because only immigrants are paid under the table. Just off the cuff, waitresses have a different minimum wage. Certain other occupations are exempt.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »First, fulltime is being paid minimum wage, by law. If you're here illegally, that's your first issue.
There are several people who have been to space before. Therefore, it is quite possible to go to space if you just choose to. I enumerated numerous reasons people can have problems getting employment.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Second, it is quite possible if you want to do it. Millions and millions do and have.
Legal definitions. Again, why do you assume how I define poverty?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Fourth, poverty has several legal definitions, and I'm working within the most generous of those.
I don't consider a system "whacked" if it is avoiding having children go hungry or live on the streets. I'd rather have dozens of people whackly receiving benefits someone might think they don't deserve than a child not receiving what they need.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Fifth, no, I'm not. I'm assuming that if they're single parents with a ton of kids they're eligible for assistance...which they are.
Technically, yes, you're "in poverty" if you make 16k a year with 3 kids and get 35k a year additionally in benefits because our system is whacked. Practically, you're not.
What about assistance to FAMILIES? Children don't receive TANF, adults do. They look at the family, so yes, if the family has a luxury item like a newer car received from a generous relative, or again, savings, the assistance for a family can be cancelled. The simple helps like school lunch programs wouldn't necessarily be cancelled for them, and usually health insurance.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Assistance for children isn't limited by those things. Assistance for able-bodied singles (who are therefore NOT working FT, or else they wouldn't be poor) is limited.
Nevermind that there are plenty of people that their own disability limits their capacity to apply for assistance.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MOST people who are disabled also work. I have two different conditions for which I would qualify for SSI disability--in fact, with one of them, the vast majority choose to go on SSI.
That aside, the poverty line is $11,770 for an individual living alone. (Note: This is the worst-case scenario.) Once you're on disability, you're no longer subject to lifetime limits for other benefits, so you get $2328 in SNAP per year plus the $8,657 in disability, and you're up to $10985 already. Add in housing benefits, and you're over, too. It's not a *comfortable* life, but it's over the threshold.
(Some people who are on disability are disabled, yes, but simply choose not to work when they could. My brother is one. I even hired him in my own business, but because he was so insanely lazy and sloppy on absurdly easy tasks that I grossly overpaid him for, I had to fire him. And yes, it was absolutely his choice. He believed that he was entitled to a comfortable life just for breathing and that having to do anything to earn it is an injustice. My parents are his enablers.)
You've also generally dropped th
A. Yes, one simple drug charge, or theft can disqualify you from plenty of jobs, particularly in any hard economyMamaBirdBoss wrote: »A few spots on a criminal record isn't going to keep you from getting a job. Violent felonies will make it much harder.
B. This still ignores the idea that the chances you receive a criminal record for the same or even lesser crimes has a lot to do with your income to start with.
Sounds like you're post hoc assigning people to what category they were based on if they made it or not. Still also ignoring all the chronic issues many of those people ready started out with.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I actually come from a not-so-great neighborhood. That is why I'm not very sympathetic. The in-and-out-of-work moochers who tried to drag their families down with them were totally below the poverty line. The ones who worked weren't. They managed to make it to work every day even when their idiot relative wrecked their car. When they lost a job, they busted their butts until they found another. The moochers were also the ones in and out of jail (for getting into stupid fights and for petty, stupid criminal behavior.) They were also the ones to make the neighborhood worse to live in.
Except, you're thinking the behaviors are completely separate from the poverty. And you're reducing my argument about health to getting access. Just being poor is its own health risk - take a primate under social stress, at the bottom of a hierarchy, it is a better predictor of artherscloris than diet or exercise.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Increasing access to healthcare doesn't actually change the health outcomes of the poor. Why not? Because they didn't have "not enough access" to begin with. It's a nonexistent barrier. What happens instead is that they choose lifestyles in terms of diet and behaviors that lead to the increase in conditions. One of my good, good friend just breaks my heart because he has alllllll kinds of horrible things happen to him and his family, and it all comes back down to bad health decisions long before anyone got sick with anything. It's insanely frustrating to see his life threatened by these things--even though he DOES work hard, he and his family have really terrible habits that they can't seem to see clearly. He's now technically just above the poverty line because his ill health makes it harder for him to work, and he refuses to go on disability. Great, great guy. Love him to death. Breaks my heart.
And I've known someone who was flat out told public transit was not what they company considered reliable transport. The person would not be hired for the job unless they showed a car.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I had a friend who had seizures and low education. He walked to work 5 miles each way because public transportation didn't line up with his schedule and he wasn't legally allowed to drive because his seizure meds couldn't fully control his seizures. He lived with someone else because he was making only a little more than minimum wage--unfortunately, that was because he had a VERY abrasive personality which made him ineligible for management even at the fast food place, which totally sucked. I couldn't convince him that seeming less like a jerk (he REALLY wasn't!) would be worth it, though.
People who care find a way. They do.
And here's what I'll say. Being poor is being at the bottom of a hierarchical system. It has been observed over and over that simply being in the stress of these conditions causes and exacerbates all kinds of conditions that create self perpetuating cycles. The mental effects of being poor are their own real effect on people. Just as some (most in fact) people that can't choose to be an Olympic level athlete, there are people who's conditions are such that being born in poverty means between culture and the wiring that happens from their living conditions, means they'll never get out of poverty by choice.
QUALITY QUALITY QUALITY0 -
Cherimoose wrote: »Guys, the poverty forum is down the hall .................>
Oh, and most people under 50 can eventually pull themselves out of poverty if they really, really want to really, really badly enough. Speaking from experience here.
Ah, this should go under a list of bad economic/race/social sayings instead of gym sayings. People can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did or like *insert case study here*. Classic.0 -
Dreamingisbliss wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »Oh, and most people under 50 can eventually pull themselves out of poverty if they really, really want to really, really badly enough. Speaking from experience here.
Ah, this should go under a list of bad economic/race/social sayings instead of gym sayings. People can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did or like *insert case study here*. Classic.
You're right, i should have left out the testimonial.
0 -
@senecarr has spoken eloquently and rationally on the subject of the systemic constraints of poverty. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure people who don't already agree won't.
I like the article originally posted, and would like to discuss it and not see further derailing on this inappropriate analogy. (But yeah I'm also pretty sure it's too late.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions