Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does where you live influence your weight & fitness?
AliciaHollywood
Posts: 102 Member
in Debate Club
I live in a small section of LA (West Hollywood) where almost everyone is slim and fit. Of course a lot of people move here to try to become actors or models so we have an inordinate amount of attractive fit people. I have two Whole Foods within 1 mile of me, three Trader Joe’s and many other stores/restaurants that are mostly organic, vegetarian or vegan. It is actually rare to see obese people where I live, it’s pretty much non-existent. But even if I drive a few miles to Culver City, I start seeing a few more heavy people and notice that the Ralph’s (Kroeger) supermarket actually stocks different food! There is much more organic and healthy food in my neighborhood Ralph’s than the one in Culver City. Is it supply and demand? More people buy healthy food in my neighborhood so they stock more? Also, when outside of LA or California, I’ve noticed there seems to be so many more overweight people.
I sometimes wonder if living where I do is actually a really good influence on me and makes it not only normal but expected to eat super healthy. I’m rarely even around situations where there is unhealthy food without at least a healthy option right next to it (ie all parties tend to have a veggie and fruit plate if they also have chips or other non-nutritious food.) I see in my direct neighborhood more super healthy organic specialty brand superfood products than I have ever seen anywhere. I personally love that health is so important here. The only weight I ever have to lose are vanity pounds that are often not even noticeable to anyone but myself.
I’m wondering if people’s neighborhoods can influence people’s weight, health and nutrition levels. I have no overweight friends. I rarely see anyone above the “normal” weight in charts when I’m out and about. Most people are definitely on the low end of normal. People here actually look like the people in movies and on TV (because they often ARE or want to be lol.) If other areas started removing junk food from supermarkets and stocking more healthy nutritious food, would that change the health of America? Is eating healthy or unhealthy just a habit that people get used to depending on where they live and what their circle of friends/family eat? I know there are many psychological reasons people either overeat or develop eating disorders, but is it possible than many overeat unhealthy food just because it’s “normal” where they live? Just curious...
I sometimes wonder if living where I do is actually a really good influence on me and makes it not only normal but expected to eat super healthy. I’m rarely even around situations where there is unhealthy food without at least a healthy option right next to it (ie all parties tend to have a veggie and fruit plate if they also have chips or other non-nutritious food.) I see in my direct neighborhood more super healthy organic specialty brand superfood products than I have ever seen anywhere. I personally love that health is so important here. The only weight I ever have to lose are vanity pounds that are often not even noticeable to anyone but myself.
I’m wondering if people’s neighborhoods can influence people’s weight, health and nutrition levels. I have no overweight friends. I rarely see anyone above the “normal” weight in charts when I’m out and about. Most people are definitely on the low end of normal. People here actually look like the people in movies and on TV (because they often ARE or want to be lol.) If other areas started removing junk food from supermarkets and stocking more healthy nutritious food, would that change the health of America? Is eating healthy or unhealthy just a habit that people get used to depending on where they live and what their circle of friends/family eat? I know there are many psychological reasons people either overeat or develop eating disorders, but is it possible than many overeat unhealthy food just because it’s “normal” where they live? Just curious...
9
Replies
-
I live on an island too.9
-
Your network of friends and social group tends to influence it, so I'd guess on average where you live and the culture thereof would be important.10
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »I live on an island too.
I was gonna say "bubble" but yep!7 -
Living in a non-walkable area definitely influences weight and fitness. It's easier to stay fit when you have the option of walking places, or running outside.
Any supermarket that removed junk food would face a huge backlash and probably go out of business. You can't dictate something as personal as food on that scale. Some communities do have a culture of healthy eating and tend to have lower rates of obesity. But you can't force people to change their culture, at least not without a backlash, and that raises ethical questions.
Also, even "healthy organic specialty" supermarkets have plenty of junk food. You have the causality backwards -- the supermarkets in your area stock more healthy foods because there is more demand due to the local culture of being healthy/fit.
And anyway, junk food doesn't make you fat. It's the quantity of calories that makes you fat, regardless of where it comes from.15 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Living in a non-walkable area definitely influences weight and fitness. It's easier to stay fit when you have the option of walking places, or running outside.
Any supermarket that removed junk food would face a huge backlash and probably go out of business. You can't dictate something as personal as food on that scale. Some communities do have a culture of healthy eating and tend to have lower rates of obesity. But you can't force people to change their culture, at least not without a backlash, and that raises ethical questions.
Also, even "healthy organic specialty" supermarkets have plenty of junk food. You have the causality backwards -- the supermarkets in your area stock more healthy foods because there is more demand due to the local culture of being healthy/fit.
And anyway, junk food doesn't make you fat. It's the quantity of calories that makes you fat, regardless of where it comes from.
Actually junk food does make you fat. All the salt, sugar and chemicals makes you crave more salt and sugar so you eat more junk food full of empty calories and chemicals. And healthy nutritional foods are used by the body as fuel while junk food just clogs arteries, is stored as fat, gives you high cholesterol, is conducive to diabetes and otherwise reeks havoc on the body. It’s not even all about weight, but health and nutrition. I can never understand how people are basically putting poison in their bodies every day and food corporations are getting away with poisoning Americans. There is literally no value whatsoever to “foods” like Cheetos or Twinkies and still people consume them. Why? Not only is there no nutritional value to them, they are BAD for you, poisonous! Sodas like Coke and Pepsi, even the zero calorie kind are pure poison! People have to think less about losing weight and more about nutrition. If people stuck to healthy, pure, non-prepackaged foods with high nutritional value, they would automatically lose weight and feel so much healthier!8 -
AliciaHollywood wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »Living in a non-walkable area definitely influences weight and fitness. It's easier to stay fit when you have the option of walking places, or running outside.
Any supermarket that removed junk food would face a huge backlash and probably go out of business. You can't dictate something as personal as food on that scale. Some communities do have a culture of healthy eating and tend to have lower rates of obesity. But you can't force people to change their culture, at least not without a backlash, and that raises ethical questions.
Also, even "healthy organic specialty" supermarkets have plenty of junk food. You have the causality backwards -- the supermarkets in your area stock more healthy foods because there is more demand due to the local culture of being healthy/fit.
And anyway, junk food doesn't make you fat. It's the quantity of calories that makes you fat, regardless of where it comes from.
Actually junk food does make you fat. All the salt, sugar and chemicals makes you crave more salt and sugar so you eat more junk food full of empty calories and chemicals. And healthy nutritional foods are used by the body as fuel while junk food just clogs arteries, is stored as fat, gives you high cholesterol, is conducive to diabetes and otherwise reeks havoc on the body. It’s not even all about weight, but health and nutrition. I can never understand how people are basically putting poison in their bodies every day and food corporations are getting away with poisoning Americans. There is literally no value whatsoever to “foods” like Cheetos or Twinkies and still people consume them. Why? Not only is there no nutritional value to them, they are BAD for you, poisonous! Sodas like Coke and Pepsi, even the zero calorie kind are pure poison! People have to think less about losing weight and more about nutrition. If people stuck to healthy, pure, non-prepackaged foods with high nutritional value, they would automatically lose weight and feel so much healthier!
Guess my body didn't get the memo on that (currently eating a Drumstick ice cream as I type this, definitely not even close to fat ) that is quite a generalization... junk doesn't make me crave more at all and my health is just fine.
I eat fairly nutritious overall but geez at 3000+ calories a day I would be a bloated mess with 100% clean/nutritious non-processed food and I'd be miserable and my workout performance would plummet and I would likely be underweight. No thanks. In the past I was obsessed with "clean eating" and consuming no sugar and once I had some BBQ sauce on some grilled meat my Mom made and I cried my eyes out when I got home. I was in a really bad place and I never want to go back there, I hope your post doesn't send people thinking that if they eat one non-nutritious food it is poison and they have failed. That would be sad. I am here to say there is nothing wrong with it and you can fit that stuff in and lose weight and be healthy (and look great too).
29 -
AliciaHollywood wrote: »Actually junk food does make you fat. All the salt, sugar and chemicals makes you crave more salt and sugar so you eat more junk food full of empty calories and chemicals.
That depends on the person. I don't have any problems with overeating, and I have no problem eating junk food in moderation.
Also, from what I can tell based on people I know and on "what I eat in a day" videos, overweight/obese people generally tend to have a problem with overeating all foods in general, not just junk foods specifically. My husband used to be obese and he would overeat everything. Even now, the main things he binges on are milk and cheese, which are not considered to be "junk food" by most nutritional experts. He also used to binge on meat a lot when he was obese (he's now vegetarian for ethical reasons), which is also not considered to be "junk food."
"Empty" calories is a meaningless term. And citation needed on the claim that "chemicals" (which chemicals?) cause people to overeat. Every food is full of "chemicals," because every food is entirely comprised of chemicals.And healthy nutritional foods are used by the body as fuel while junk food just clogs arteries, is stored as fat, gives you high cholesterol, is conducive to diabetes and otherwise reeks havoc on the body.
What?? That's not how any of this works. All foods are used by the body as fuel, unless excess calories are consumed, in which case the excess calories are stored as fat. I will never understand how some people have a misunderstanding of nutrition that violates the laws of thermodynamics.It’s not even all about weight, but health and nutrition. I can never understand how people are basically putting poison in their bodies every day and food corporations are getting away with poisoning Americans. There is literally no value whatsoever to “foods” like Cheetos or Twinkies and still people consume them. Why? Not only is there no nutritional value to them, they are BAD for you, poisonous! Sodas like Coke and Pepsi, even the zero calorie kind are pure poison!
People eat these foods because they want to eat them. Corporations aren't "getting away with poisoning Americans." They make a product, and people eat it with full knowledge of its nutritional contents, which are clearly printed on the package, as required by law. The question is, why does it bother you so much that people choose to eat foods that you don't like, to the point that you want them to be banned?People have to think less about losing weight and more about nutrition. If people stuck to healthy, pure, non-prepackaged foods with high nutritional value, they would automatically lose weight and feel so much healthier!
Citation needed.
22 -
Sure, where a person lives and who they associate with makes a difference in what they think and do: Humans on average are quite motivated toward belonging, toward living in ways consistent with social norms. (I'm not saying it's universal, but it's fairly usual. On average, many people like to read the popular books, listen to the popular music, follow the popular diet, etc. Are those objectively "the best" books, music, diets, etc.? Probably not consistently.)
Also, as others have said, local logistics and geography make a difference: Congenial or harsh weather affects outdoor activity, walkable/bikeable areas tend to foster walking and biking, and that sort of thing. There's a two way effect, in these logistical/geographic effects, I suspect: People move to, say, the Pacific NW or Colorado because they enjoy certain kinds of outdoor activities, and the availability of those activities also causes some other people to take up that lifestyle who might not have done so if they lived elsewhere.
I also suspect there's a double-edged sword in the more social-normative things you mention, sometimes, too. For example, in my experience, it's common some in higher-income, higher-education areas I've lived in to be self-congratulatory about that area's norms, and to subtly but self-righteously deprecate "those people" (whoever the heck "those people" are in any given situation - in this one, usually low-income, blue-collar, less educated people - "people of Walmart" or harsh stereotypes like that). That self-righteousness really isn't pretty, from a character standpoint, IMO.
From friends who've lived in some of the showbiz-focused parts of California, I gather that it's not unusual for there to be a similar set of attitudes elevating people who are thin and pretty, and deprecating people who aren't. I have no idea whether that extends to matters of food culture, never lived there myself, never specifically came up in conversation.
All of that sort of thing is very normal human behavior and thinking, at a high level of generalization: "Our team good, their team bad." I fear we tend to fall into it rather easily, as a default.
There's some value, I think, in seeking out diverse social contexts, and working to develop more understanding and more empathy about people whose norms differ, and some potential for insight from making that effort. Hard work, though. Usually, things among "those people" are not as simple as they appear from a distance, IME.
I'm not saying I'm a paragon in these ways, I want to make clear. I do make an effort, but fail often. Very, very often.
Shifting gears slightly, but in response to your post, I don't think removing junk food would make a material difference in obesity rates . . . even if we could manage to arrive at a sensible definition of what "junk food" is. People get fat without eating much if any junk food (I did), and I'd agree with a PP that places like Whole Foods and Trader Joe's stock plenty of "junk food", by nearly any sensible definition of the term. And Kroger, Walmart, etc., stock plenty of "healthy" foods, also by nearly any sensible definition - often the same products as WF (often same brands, in their case) or TJ's (store branded, but equivalent), but at a slightly lower price point at Kroger, in my area.
(Prepandemic, I frequently shopped at both my local Kroger, and a Whole Foods down the road in a bit more high-income/status area - I'm not speculating, I'm reporting. I've visited the local Walmart and specialty health food places here somewhat, too. It never really occurred to me to think about what fraction of the patrons were obese or not, in the different stores; if it had, I'd report that, too.)18 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »AliciaHollywood wrote: »Actually junk food does make you fat. All the salt, sugar and chemicals makes you crave more salt and sugar so you eat more junk food full of empty calories and chemicals.
"Empty" calories is a meaningless term. And citation needed on the claim that "chemicals" (which chemicals?) cause people to overeat. Every food is full of "chemicals," because every food is entirely comprised of chemicals.
To be honest the CDC uses the term "empty calories". I'm guessing they use it for a very specific purpose
Eating Behaviors of Young People
Between 2001 and 2010, consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among children and adolescents decreased, but still accounts for 10% of total caloric intake.10
Between 2003 and 2010, total fruit intake and whole fruit intake among children and adolescents increased. However, most youth still do not meet fruit and vegetable recommendations.11,12
Empty calories from added sugars and solid fats contribute to 40% of daily calories for children and adolescents age 2–18 years—affecting the overall quality of their diets. Approximately half of these empty calories come from six sources: soda, fruit drinks, dairy desserts, grain desserts, pizza, and whole milk.4 Most youth do not consume the recommended amount of total water.13
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/facts.htm
Now nothing saying people can't consume "empty calories" within reason. The CDC feels, at least for those 2-18, they are consuming too many of them. Chances are those over 18 are too.3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »AliciaHollywood wrote: »Actually junk food does make you fat. All the salt, sugar and chemicals makes you crave more salt and sugar so you eat more junk food full of empty calories and chemicals.
"Empty" calories is a meaningless term. And citation needed on the claim that "chemicals" (which chemicals?) cause people to overeat. Every food is full of "chemicals," because every food is entirely comprised of chemicals.
To be honest the CDC uses the term "empty calories". I'm guessing they use it for a very specific purpose
Eating Behaviors of Young People
Between 2001 and 2010, consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among children and adolescents decreased, but still accounts for 10% of total caloric intake.10
Between 2003 and 2010, total fruit intake and whole fruit intake among children and adolescents increased. However, most youth still do not meet fruit and vegetable recommendations.11,12
Empty calories from added sugars and solid fats contribute to 40% of daily calories for children and adolescents age 2–18 years—affecting the overall quality of their diets. Approximately half of these empty calories come from six sources: soda, fruit drinks, dairy desserts, grain desserts, pizza, and whole milk.4 Most youth do not consume the recommended amount of total water.13
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/facts.htm
Now nothing saying people can't consume "empty calories" within reason. The CDC feels, at least for those 2-18, they are consuming too many of them. Chances are those over 18 are too.
In what f'd up world view is whole milk considered 'empty calories' ???18 -
I don't think weight and fitness are a function of eating fancy organic, specialty brands, or "superfoods." I can easily meet my grocery shopping needs at my local grocery store with foods like oats, carrots, potatoes, cabbage, tofu, black beans, canned tomatoes, frozen berries, and bulk cashews. I don't need organic dragonfruit, goji berries, and gluten-free whatevers (although I'll sometimes enjoy fancier stuff, I'm not a monk).
My sister, living in a solidly non-cool part of California, "manages" to cook from scratch for her family from her Ralph's -- I've been there with her, it's very "normal" and she shops pretty much like I do. Her family eats nutrient-rich meals, her kids are active, and she and her husband run and bike regularly.
My impression: you live in an area where external appearances are very important and being slender is part of that. People often attempt to express their commitment to this value by spending money on things that aren't necessarily important to actually being fit -- like fancy foods, expensive workout clothes, and trendy workout regimes. You're confusing the spending with the end result.
In reality, the people with the same commitment to fitness are staying fit in the less trendy parts of your state. They just are doing it without some of the external trappings you and your friends prize.
This isn't to say there aren't some real systemic barriers to weight management and fitness. Things like having safe and clean outdoor recreation areas and sidewalks can make a difference in outdoor activity levels. There are people who struggle with having sufficient time, space, or physical ability to prepare their own meals regularly. And, of course, there are also people who are food insecure and don't always have the ability to choose what, when, and how much they're eating. But your post isn't really about that.16 -
Definitely! I live in a small Midwestern town (about 30 minutes from the nearest city). We have a Walmart and a Kroger as our grocery options. They are smaller than the typical size for those stores, and carry limited organic fruits & veggies, and almost no truly healthy meat items. They also carry limited options for some whole grains (pasta, bread, etc.). I'm 50 minutes away from the nearest Whole Foods type store. We have no Trader Joes in the city nearest us either. Our produce (especially the fruit) is awful looking. So, we just have to buy what we can get most of the time (especially now with Covid). The sad part is that we have like a dozen fast food restaurants and 3 pizza chains in our town, so no problem finding a selection of junk to eat. Thankfully, we keep a pretty good size garden and can freeze and can a lot of our veggies to use in the winter months.
Also, I prefer to do most of my exercise (that doesn't involve weights) outside, but I have asthma so once the temperature drops below 50 F I really have to stick to indoor exercise only (so like 5 months per year). I've known many people who have done a great job losing weight during the warm weather months only to pack it back on during the fall & winter. We also don't have a lot of exciting places to go in my area, so food festivals are a big thing here, which isn't helping anyone eat healthy. I am thankful though that our town has a few really nice walking/bike trails and a surprising number of people use them regularly. We also have a great YMCA (although it's not affordable for a lot of families).
Edit: I do want to say that yes, I think it's possible to make healthy meals with the options we have in our town. We just don't have as many options as people who live in large cities do.7 -
Definitely! I live in a small Midwestern town (about 30 minutes from the nearest city). We have a Walmart and a Kroger as our grocery options. They are smaller than the typical size for those stores, and carry limited organic fruits & veggies, and almost no truly healthy meat items. They also carry limited options for some whole grains (pasta, bread, etc.). I'm 50 minutes away from the nearest Whole Foods type store. We have no Trader Joes in the city nearest us either. Our produce (especially the fruit) is awful looking. So, we just have to buy what we can get most of the time (especially now with Covid). The sad part is that we have like a dozen fast food restaurants and 3 pizza chains in our town, so no problem finding a selection of junk to eat. Thankfully, we keep a pretty good size garden and can freeze and can a lot of our veggies to use in the winter months.
Also, I prefer to do most of my exercise (that doesn't involve weights) outside, but I have asthma so once the temperature drops below 50 F I really have to stick to indoor exercise only (so like 5 months per year). I've known many people who have done a great job losing weight during the warm weather months only to pack it back on during the fall & winter. We also don't have a lot of exciting places to go in my area, so food festivals are a big thing here, which isn't helping anyone eat healthy. I am thankful though that our town has a few really nice walking/bike trails and a surprising number of people use them regularly. We also have a great YMCA (although it's not affordable for a lot of families).
Can you share what you'd define as a "truly healthy meat item"? At most grocery stores I shop, including in smaller areas, I've seen things like chicken, leaner cuts of beef and pork, frozen shrimp, canned fish, and frozen fish fillets, so I'm thinking establishing common terms for the context of this conversation may be helpful.
Personally, I don't eat meat. But if I did, I can think of some nutrient-rich dishes I could make with those items above that would easily fit into my calorie goals.9 -
I live smack dab on the corner of McDonalds, Burger King, Sonic, and Braum’s. Snack Attack next door. 5 pizza places within a mile. Think I should move?11
-
It has less to do with geographically where you live and more to do with the income level where you live.
If you have a higher income, you can live in an area where there are well-stocked grocery stores nearby. You can afford to make choices about the quality of the food you purchase. You have better health insurance that allows you to visit specialists if you have a health concern. You can afford a gym membership, a home gym, a bicycle, etc. and have the time to use them. You feel safe going for a walk in your neighborhood.
For lower-income people or those in poverty, you might live in a "food desert", without easy access to fresh foods. You might not have a car to be able to drive to a large grocery store. You can't afford to always make the "best" food choices. You might have to get food from food banks, which don't always have the "healthiest" offerings. You don't have access to good, affordable health care. You might work multiple jobs, which leaves no time for exercise or cooking homemade meals. You might live in a neighborhood that is too dangerous to even go out for a walk.
This is not to say that there are not ways for a lower-income person to maintain a healthy weight, eat nutritious foods, and exercise. But, there are far more barriers for them than people with higher incomes face.
I think it's very judgmental and naive to insinuate that all we have to do is, as you suggest, remove "junk food" from store shelves and everyone would be skinny and healthy like you and your friends. Like if we just remove the temptation from "these people", then they'll make "healthy" choices instead. It's a far more complex societal and economic problem that has no easy fix.34 -
It's where you live in your head over location, location, location. Weight loss begins in the kitchen but real transformation happens in the mind.6
-
When supply is generous the supermarkets will cater to demand. The only reason any store has more of one type of food than another is because of demand. They are not trying to solve obesity in a specific area they are just trying to make more money.
When I moved I started shopping at a new store. I eat 10 servings of egg whites at least 5 days a week. When I started going to the store they carried 2 cartons and of course I bought both. I had to get more from another store. After 3 weeks of this their supply increased and instead of buying 2 I was able to buy 4 which I purchased all of again. After 3 more weeks of this they carried 8 and now they carry 12. I buy 8 so I am finally leaving some behind. Shelf space, especially refrigerated and frozen, is precious and outside of some staple items it is going to be devoted to proven winners. People are going to buy the food they want.11 -
I see that this has taken a different turn than I expected initially. (I admit I skimmed the OP so missed the focus on superfoods and so on.)
I DO think that where one lives (and the social group one is in) likely affects weight, on average. I've found it easier to stay in shape when most of those I spent time with were into outdoor activities, physical fitness -- it helped encourage me to focus on those things as hobbies, and it's fun to be able to go for a day long ride with a group vs having to get in training on my own. Similarly, it's likely easier when the restaurants people want to go to have healthier (or simply lower cal) options, when parties where food is brought or supplied tend to have more of those options, and just generally where it's expected and assumed people will be fit. There's more social pressure that can be hard if one is fat and no one else is, but I think that makes it -- on average -- harder for people to decide they are okay with being overweight too. (Not impossible, as I am in a social group on average where people are not obese and yet I was for a while.)
I also think seeing others get in shape can be motivating -- it was for me when a co-worker lost a bunch of weight.
There is research that shows that weight is influenced by one's network of friends and acquaintances, as I said initially, so living in a city that takes fitness/outdoor activity seriously would seem likely to matter too. And of course having a walkable place to live and places to safely exercise outdoors or that encourage outdoor physical activity (like beautiful trails) would help too, IMO.
I do not think one needs special stores -- outside of living in a food desert, of course -- to be fit or healthy. I shop various places and could be perfectly fit and healthy even if I only went to my local Jewel and never any specialty stores or WF or whatnot (I do love farmers markets and buying from farms, but I don't need to do that to be fit). Nor do I think organic has anything to do with weight/fitness.4 -
I grew up working poor, and my parents were factory shift workers.
We lived on oatmeal, cheap hamburger meat, browned produce, bags of rice, and bread/pastry.
Oatmeal and rice have a long shelf life and they are filling. Hamburger meat could be stretched with oatmeal or rice molded into patties and frozen. Bread and pastry could be bought in abundance at the week old bread store.
Everything was made or purchased in bulk, cause the car was unreliable, they didn't have time and they could batch prep as much as they could. They came home almost dead white with exhaustion from their shifts (my mother assembled windshield wipers, my father moved steel in a mill) so whatever could be reheated was what we ate. When we got older we made it so they could sleep.
Their concerns weren't nutrition. Their concerns were 1) not getting evicted 2) not getting injured on the job cause that meant losing their jobs 3) being able to pay for food...you don't buy fresh produce, cause if that rots that means you've wasted the money that you shifted over from buying milk 4) being able to buy clothes at the Salvation Army thrift store.
Today, I'm affluent. The people in my neighborhood view their bodies as status symbols (just like their cars and the private schools their children attend.) No one cleans their own house, does their own landscaping, buys their own groceries. There is money, there is time and there is energy.
Had my parents had those, we would have eaten differently.30 -
ShredWeek1 wrote: »I grew up working poor, and my parents were factory shift workers.
We lived on oatmeal, cheap hamburger meat, browned produce, bags of rice, and bread/pastry.
Oatmeal and rice have a long shelf life and they are filling. Hamburger meat could be stretched with oatmeal or rice molded into patties and frozen. Bread and pastry could be bought in abundance at the week old bread store.
Everything was made or purchased in bulk, cause the car was unreliable, they didn't have time and they could batch prep as much as they could. They came home almost dead white with exhaustion from their shifts (my mother assembled windshield wipers, my father moved steel in a mill) so whatever could be reheated was what we ate. When we got older we made it so they could sleep.
Their concerns weren't nutrition. Their concerns were 1) not getting evicted 2) not getting injured on the job cause that meant losing their jobs 3) being able to pay for food...you don't buy fresh produce, cause if that rots that means you've wasted the money that you shifted over from buying milk 4) being able to buy clothes at the Salvation Army thrift store.
Today, I'm affluent. The people in my neighborhood view their bodies as status symbols (just like their cars and the private schools their children attend.) No one cleans their own house, does their own landscaping, buys their own groceries. There is money, there is time and there is energy.
Had my parents had those, we would have eaten differently.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you for sharing your story, especially by summing it up in this sentence...There is money, there is time and there is energy.10 -
Please see the map below published by CDC. Geography makes a huge difference- notice the clustering of more and less obese states:2
-
Please see the map below published by CDC. Geography makes a huge difference- notice the clustering.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html#states3 -
Onedaywriter wrote: »Please see the map below published by CDC. Geography makes a huge difference- notice the clustering.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html#states
Now overlay it with these maps that show median household income. You'll see that the states with the lowest median income have the highest obesity rates. So, it just proves the point that it's economics, not geography.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html
10 -
I've seen the stats in my country (Canada) on obesity rates among different socio-economic groups, the difference is not that great. Lower income people are more likely to suffer from obesity, but the difference is minimal, like 1-2%. I suspect it's similar in the US.
I mean just look around you, there are plenty of smart and educated people who are obese,3 -
.
0 -
I've seen the stats in my country (Canada) on obesity rates among different socio-economic groups, the difference is not that great. Lower income people are more likely to suffer from obesity, but the difference is minimal, like 1-2%. I suspect it's similar in the US.
I mean just look around you, there are plenty of smart and educated people who are obese,
My understanding is that socio-economic inequality gaps are much larger in the U.S. than in Canada.4 -
I live in Chicago and with the available trail on our lakefront offering the opportunity for running and biking that there is at least a positive impact created by that.5
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I've seen the stats in my country (Canada) on obesity rates among different socio-economic groups, the difference is not that great. Lower income people are more likely to suffer from obesity, but the difference is minimal, like 1-2%. I suspect it's similar in the US.
I mean just look around you, there are plenty of smart and educated people who are obese,
My understanding is that socio-economic inequality gaps are much larger in the U.S. than in Canada.
I think it's likely that those in lower socio economic groups are more likely than average to be obese. However I think it's limited to that, being in a higher group probably doesn't make less likely than average to be obese. Purely my opinion.0 -
pitbullpuppy wrote: »I've seen the stats in my country (Canada) on obesity rates among different socio-economic groups, the difference is not that great. Lower income people are more likely to suffer from obesity, but the difference is minimal, like 1-2%. I suspect it's similar in the US.
I mean just look around you, there are plenty of smart and educated people who are obese,
I am just curious why intelligence and education are being brought up in relation to obesity? Genuinely
It's complicated, but there do appear to be some statistical correlations between educational attainment and obesity, though it doesn't necessarily seem to work the same way everywhere.
For example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902051/
ETA: No comment from me on correlation with intelligence; I don't consider educational attainment and intelligence to be equivalent. I'm also not expressing an opinion, via this post, that "poor people are more likely to be fat". I'm just responding to your literal question, as to why they'd be brought up in connection to obesity: It's been studied, and there are appear to be correlations, but it's complex.1 -
I have never eaten a McDonald's Big Mac in my life and instead went from large-ish to morbid obese slowly over a 15 year period by simply eating a bit more than I should. There is more to it of course, quite a bit more in fact, how come I did not care enough about myself to nip it in the bud but that is a story for another day.
But now I am shifting it and am doing that by eating less than I need and not one morsel of my current diet is an organic superfood because I do not have more money than sense. I eat nice food I enjoy, always have, but now I am calorie counting.
Just saying that a lot of stuff that gets trotted out when discussing obesity is a load of tosh and very little of it comes from actually talking to people who are or who have been obese to understanding how they got there.
Would living in California, surrounded by skinny people and shops that sell organic bananas for 4 times the price of ordinary ones have stopped me from getting so fat? No, not unless all the other factors were removed also.
7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions