Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Does where you live influence your weight & fitness?

2

Replies

  • OnedaywriterOnedaywriter Member Posts: 180 Member Member Posts: 180 Member
    Please see the map below published by CDC. Geography makes a huge difference- notice the clustering of more and less obese states:
  • OnedaywriterOnedaywriter Member Posts: 180 Member Member Posts: 180 Member
    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
  • Mellouk89Mellouk89 Member Posts: 96 Member Member Posts: 96 Member
    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,
    edited August 21
  • Mellouk89Mellouk89 Member Posts: 96 Member Member Posts: 96 Member
    .

    edited August 21
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,182 Member Member Posts: 8,182 Member
    Mellouk89 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.
  • richardgavelrichardgavel Member Posts: 891 Member Member Posts: 891 Member
    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.
  • richardgavelrichardgavel Member Posts: 891 Member Member Posts: 891 Member
    Mellouk89 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.
  • pitbullpuppypitbullpuppy Member Posts: 174 Member Member Posts: 174 Member
    Mellouk89 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
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 16,456 Member Member, Premium Posts: 16,456 Member
    Mellouk89 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.
    edited August 22
  • freda78freda78 Member Posts: 172 Member Member Posts: 172 Member
    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.
  • lemongirlbclemongirlbc Member, Premium Posts: 338 Member Member, Premium Posts: 338 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    As an aside: isn't it remarkable that in our society, for pretty much the first time in history, poor people are more likely to be overweight than affluent people? That's kind of amazing. Starvation has been a scourge of mankind since we started walking upright, and within two generations we've gone from starving to excoriating our society because lower income people have too much food.

    I was thinking this too, often I think socio-economic position plays a massive role.
  • WandaVaughnWandaVaughn Member Posts: 383 Member Member Posts: 383 Member
    I live in north Alabama. According to the above maps, we have high obesity and low median incomes. I think a few things play into the bigger sizes around here. Our food culture: we fry everything! Fried okra, squash, mushrooms, cauliflower, tomatoes, pumpkin, potatoes, skillet-fried corn -- I've eaten them all! Our religious culture: Pre-pandemic church socials involved a lot of potluck meals. And of course you had to try a little bit of Bro. Jim's squash casserole and Sister Jean's triple layer fudge cake. And I'm not even mentioning family reunions with enough food to feed generations!

    But then there's the low incomes. I grew up in a home where Daddy worked and Mom would babysit to bring in extra money. Food for us, a family of five, consisted mostly of pots of pinto beans with cornbread, spaghetti with a bit of hamburger in it, occasional meatloafs, frozen pot pies if they were on sale, and occasionally bbq chicken quarters to brighten a weekend. Lunches were canned soups or peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Nothing marked "diet" or "organic".

    I think my problem with food came with making sure to "clean my plate" and bowing to pressure of seconds, which became too much of a habit. I also had to learn how to cook in a different way than my mom and relatives. Not that I won't eat my mom's fried okra when given the chance!

    Just my 2 cents worth in this conversation.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 16,456 Member Member, Premium Posts: 16,456 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    As an aside: isn't it remarkable that in our society, for pretty much the first time in history, poor people are more likely to be overweight than affluent people? That's kind of amazing. Starvation has been a scourge of mankind since we started walking upright, and within two generations we've gone from starving to excoriating our society because lower income people have too much food.

    In most more highly developed countries, that can be the case. Still way, there way too many poor people in the world who are underfueled and undernourished, elsewhere.

    Issues of food quality or food choice in the more developed countries, as they interplay with socio-economic factors, are pretty complicated IMO.

    It's good that we have less starvation in these more-developed places, but now we have a different set of mortality-increasing (and disability increasing) problems.

    Though I do consider individuals to be responsible for what they eat, those broad-scale problems of diet quality are still all of our problem . . . and I don't think it requires empathy or its equivalent to feel that way. As just one example, poorly nourished children are likely to become less educated, less healthy adults, and that has a bunch of economic costs and civil-society implications. Reasonable self-interest would seem to drive toward more well-off people throwing money in that direction. And yet . . . .
  • ritzvinritzvin Member, Premium Posts: 2,738 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,738 Member
    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!

    Soda has saved its share of athletes that were beyond the point of majorly bonked. Quick dense carbs and sugar do have their place, and are almost a requirement for endurance athletes to meet their calorie needs. Just because you might be nearly sedentary, doesn't mean everyone is.

  • ritzvinritzvin Member, Premium Posts: 2,738 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,738 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    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.

    I suspect that I'm almost-single-handedly responsible for the somewhat growing pork rind section in my small nearby bodega. (the salt & vinegar ones are my favored post-ride snack when not in a sweet ice cream mood).
    edited August 25
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 1,222 Member Member Posts: 1,222 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    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!

    Soda has saved its share of athletes that were beyond the point of majorly bonked. Quick dense carbs and sugar do have their place, and are almost a requirement for endurance athletes to meet their calorie needs. Just because you might be nearly sedentary, doesn't mean everyone is.

    0.5% of the US population has ever run a marathon, 70% of the US population is currently overweight or obese.

    Nothing wrong with some soda occasionally but it has more likely contributed to more heath issues than it has "saved".
    edited August 25
  • ritzvinritzvin Member, Premium Posts: 2,738 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,738 Member
    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.

    Adding to this: what food can be easily transported plays a role too... low calorie density-high volume items take up valuable space in a backpack for someone walking a long distance or taking buses to/from the grocery store. (This is one of the reason's I've found it weird that soda and potato chips are as commonly eaten in low-income areas as they are..much too cumbersome to carry. Bread is a 'squishing' issue, but too practical for use and cheap to let that stand in the way).
Sign In or Register to comment.