Are the poor fat?

Greytfish

I get what you're saying. however here, if you work you qualify for much much less help, if you are considered lower middle class you likely qualify for nothing while barely making ends meet. The working poor and lower middle class are much closer in situations then the poor is to either classification. I guess i would have been considered working poor at that time, since I had a job. But I was proud to have that job and proud to be trying to dig myself out of the hole I was in. I wouldn't have wanted to be associated with those who live off welfare or on the states dime. In my opinion, that slight difference is a big difference mentally.

Yeah that is essentially how it works here - at a certain point of hours worked you can't get benefits at all. My point is I find it silly for people who are either working poor or "lower middle class" to disparagingly remark about the benefits people even MORE poor than they are are getting.

And from my experience - most poor people (even on welfare) - are trying to dig themselves out of a hole. I agree not everyone sadly - but from my decade of interactions with tens of thousands of poor people - the majority are trying to do the same thing as you really.

Really nothing to do with this thread though so I will drop it, have always just found that dynamic interesting. Like the people that showed the most disdain towards the homeless people I worked with - were the people in a social class JUST above them. Always fascinated me.

They resent them in many cases. They don't feel fortunate to not be that bad off because overall, they tend to feel like they work harder to get to the same place. In some cases, they're correct.

Who blasts me for giving money to a homeless person? The working poor. And the spend-before-saving folks. Never the people in the highest tax brackets.

Who thinks I should not have used the Starbucks app on my phone to buy a sandwich for a homeless man I encountered on my run? (I only had a gel, my ID, and my phone, no money at all) Those same groups.

It's a sad comment on the loss of a sense community.

tedrickp

Yeah that was my gut feeling too. And it is def a bit sad to me as well

Vune

When I was living at the shelter last summer, I sometimes ate upwards of 4 doughnuts in a sitting, plus large helpings of whatever they gave us for dinner. I still was not fat.

What kind of dinners did they serve you?

This thread makes me think of my time working in homeless shelter (for about ten years, inner-city Toronto). Our kitchen was not healthy at all. The cooks had no health knowledge at all. In fact, most of the cooks probably had no training period.

All the kitchen cared about (and I can see why) was getting out as much food as they needed as cheaply as possible. I remember it being carb heavy, not lean cuts of meat often and fresh veggies were only available when donated (which was relatively often to be fair).

Between meals people got sandwiches (all they could eat) which were 85% bread with small amount of meat. Or anything donated from local businesses - which were usually better sandwiches or "treats".

I think it would be hard to "be healthy" in that scenario - but I wouldn't say the population I dealt with was any fatter on average than non homeless people. (albeit there were substance abuse and mental health issues for a percentage of people - but thats true for people with money too.)

Dinner was cooked by whomever was keeping an eye on us that night. It was usually a cheap cut off meat, overcooked, with soggy canned veggies and instant potatoes or rice. Sometimes spaghetti with meat sauce. One day, some old ladies brought in a mall for us with a fresh pasta salad. We ate everything with gusto, except that thing which was definitely NOT shepherd's pie!

Dessert was cake or pie or other donated baked goods. A fight almost broke out when we got a small portion of fresh fruit to share. Cantaloupe was our caviar!

We were out of the house from 5:45am-4pm. The soup kitchen usually had salads, and I would often eat 2 or 3 when others didn't want theirs. But it wasn't so busy for breakfast, so I would fill up on doughnuts and save myself the noise and anxiety.

Even though I still need the food bank, I'm thinking of volunteering at one while waiting for my job training. I'm so bored.

geebusuk

Lunch meat of the variety you described and the OP described very much is garbage. The package it comes in has no more chemicals and colorings, though somewhat less protein.

Please provide some back up for the claim it is 'garbage'.
The packaging probably has a lot less 'chemicals'. You will find the widest range of 'chemicals' in food that is 'grown' by nature rather than food produced from more base elements in a factory - though often the base elements are seperated from items grown in nature.

For that same money, you get a large portion of artifical preservatives that disrupt proper brain chemistry and function and "lunch meat" will have cost you more than buying the actual precooked meat from which it is partially made.

Please provide some decent evidence for this, too. Cheap processed meats tend to be reformed from scraps which couldn't be sold at a higher price point to those that believe said non-continuous bits of meat have less nutritional value.
(See all the ****wittery over the so called 'pink slime'.)

Period.

No need to discuss that it's your "time of the month" here .

As for pasties - I was brought up on very basic food generally. VERY occasionally we might get a meat pie from a snack van (say once a month) - this was in Papua New Guinea where they didn't really 'do' burgers or hot dogs. I still have a taste for pasties and lots of other foods I never had as a kid. Turns out you CAN like food you haven't tried before!

I'm not sure if the pastie-eater was actually trying to eat super-cheap anyway?

Greytfish

Still singing the same, off-key tune. :laugh:

I will, predictably, call BS when you argue poverty constricts your choices but you'll spend more money on less nutritious foods because they provide mental happiness in place of sustenance. That's not poverty dictating choices, that's just poor decision making.

And clearly not been paying ANY attention to my posts. I have consistently stated quite the opposite of what you are claiming that I have "argued." I call BS on your forum skills.

Yes, forum skills. Too bad universities teach those pesky career skills instead of "forum skills" or I could be rationalizing my way out of poor choices. Of course, I still couldn't top your stellar performance of mass confusion or intoxication leading to the brilliant conclusion that anemia requires increased calorie consumption

You claim to be asserting that one can eat healthy even when poor. People on limited incomes follow with interest. Then you post anything but healthy foods on a budget and whine about "subjective health."

Greytfish

Please provide some back up for the claim it is 'garbage'.
The packaging probably has a lot less 'chemicals'. You will find the widest range of 'chemicals' in food that is 'grown' by nature rather than food produced from more base elements in a factory - though often the base elements are seperated from items grown in nature.

For starters, 100g of salami has more than 4 times the sodium content of the same amount of rotisserie chicken breast, which incidentally has twice the protein, at multiples of the cost as well. That's before the artificial colorings added as well as artificial flavors.

For that same money, you get a large portion of artifical preservatives that disrupt proper brain chemistry and function and "lunch meat" will have cost you more than buying the actual precooked meat from which it is partially made.

Please provide some decent evidence for this, too. Cheap processed meats tend to be reformed from scraps which couldn't be sold at a higher price point to those that believe said non-continuous bits of meat have less nutritional value.
(See all the ****wittery over the so called 'pink slime'.)

Read any of the literature on ADHD and Bipolar disorder and why psychitrists caution against their use in people in either of those categories.

Well, the fallout from "pink slime" resulting from washing beef inspected and failed as unfit for human consumption with ammonium hydroxide was a more an issue not of what food contained, but the process being classified as a "component in a production procedure" and thus not warranting disclosure of its addition to the food - as well as the fact that it was not done in South American or European markets. It may be gross, but it is McDonald's so I'm not sure that could really be a surprise to anyone. Still people tend not ro react better to withholding information vs. outright lying.

As for pasties - I was brought up on very basic food generally. VERY occasionally we might get a meat pie from a snack van (say once a month) - this was in Papua New Guinea where they didn't really 'do' burgers or hot dogs. I still have a taste for pasties and lots of other foods I never had as a kid. Turns out you CAN like food you haven't tried before!

I'm not sure if the pastie-eater was actually trying to eat super-cheap anyway?

Stick to discussing food. Items for personal modesty are certainly not making people fat. And, if they were, there's always good old bandaids.

Greytfish

I will, predictably, call BS when you argue poverty constricts your choices but you'll spend more money on less nutritious foods because they provide mental happiness in place of sustenance. That's not poverty dictating choices, that's just poor decision making.

I get the general point you are making - but I think ignoring mental happiness and personal preference is actually bad advice for most people when it comes to optimal health. Obviously, you can't rely fully on mental happiness or preference (thats how many of us got where we are) but ignoring it or dismissing it is equally wrong and potentially counter productive.

Poor people don't eat for mental happiness and personal preference. They eat to stay alive. There might be some people here who have been poor, but no one posting here now is actually poor. They may be economically disadvantaged, or living paycheck to paycheck, but the truly poor don't have the luxury of deciding a particular food will produce more mental happiness than another. They eat what is available and will keep them alive. People factor in happiness when they begin to have the economic flexibility to do so. As demonstrated here, some of them do that to great excess.

geebusuk

Read any of the literature on ADHD and Bipolar disorder and why psychitrists caution against their use in people in either of those categories.

Also, people allergic to peanuts could die from ingesting them.
So peanuts are a fatal poison no one should eat?


Ammonium hydroxide is naturally found in beef too, I believe. It's also used to make cheese and various other things.
Yet people aren't worried until "pink slime" is bandied around.
There's no wonder such things aren't explained when it's a target for pop-alarmism.
As it was, a meat that was low in fat and high protein, cheap AND lest wasteful was removed because of said alarmism. I do not believe there was any health issues with it.

Greytfish

Also, people allergic to peanuts could die from ingesting them.
So peanuts are a fatal poison no one should eat?

Not a very apt analogy. A peanut allergy only affects people with a certain defect. A healthy person consuming a handful of peanuts is not the equivalent of a person consuming nearly an entire day's allowance of sodium in just 100 grams - about 4 regular slices - of their daily food intake.

The additives in lunchmeat are harmful generally, and a poor substitute for less expensive full meat products. It just so happens that with certain classes of people with already heightened mental dysfunction experience a more significant disruption. Marijuana is contraindicated for similar reasons (though obviously not a food unless you bake it in a brownie or such). ADHD and Bipolar meds aren't cheap, so it would be quite foolish to consume something that decreases affectiveness and increases sensitivity. Many people on both types of medication are directly subsidized by the pharmaceutical companies, which have a vested interest in not having users that complicate their cases with destructive variables.

Ammonium hydroxide is naturally found in beef too, I believe. It's also used to make cheese and various other things.
Yet people aren't worried until "pink slime" is bandied around.
There's no wonder such things aren't explained when it's a target for pop-alarmism.
As it was, a meat that was low in fat and high protein, cheap AND lest wasteful was removed because of said alarmism. I do not believe there was any health issues with it.

Again, the problem was not the particular use. Yes, it occurs in small amounts in all proteins. Yes, it is incorporated into other foods. The issues were two fold: people don't like when they feel they get poor quality from their own nation's business while others get better quality and it's never a good tack to take that you didn't lie about your process, you just didn't disclose it.

No, most foods deemed not safe for human consumption aren't all that likely to be harmful for humans. By the same token, most humans aren't going to react well when you tell them you took meat of lesser quality than what is found in mid-gdare dogs kibble, washed it, used it - and didn't give them the option to opt out of consuming lesser quality meats than they fed their dogs. The stir had nothing to do with an argument that the pink slime would kill anyone and everything to do with the argument that failing to disclose isn't lying and that once you lie by omission, people tend to wonder what else you've forgotten to mention.

Pink slime wasn't removed from McD's food because of alarmism. ITt was removed because they aregued it was the only feasible alternative in a high beef price market and everyone was doing it - and then it was revealed that they were the only major fast food chain still using it.

eldamiano

There are ways to cut down what you spend on groceries. I'm not trying to sacrifice health for money, there does come a point when you are sacrificing one for the other. I've already given up eating organic due to cost. I'm personally not going to start eating more unhealthy foods just to save a dollar. But the truly poor will. It's really a shame that little debbies are so much less expensive then real food. It promotes unhealthy choices.

You are still completely missing the point.

Firstly you have not argued the point that junk is cheaper than healthy. We have talked about chicken breasts (the most expensive chicken part) being the example. It isnt. You go about eating organic. Yep, everybody knows that organic isnt cheap just in the same way that McDonalds every day wouldnt be cheap.

Rice, however, for example, is cheap.... and healthier than fries, cheap burgers and the other products high in saturated fat. This however, is an example of lifestyle choice which is generally ignored. Other cuts of chicken, different veg, etc. are also cheap.

When you talk of McDonalds means being the cheaper option, you are clearly ignoring this.

Furthermore, you do not take into account healthy/unhealthy portion sizes, simply stating junk is cheaper. The problem with most obese people is that they love a side order or two or 8. If they were so poor that they were forced to eat portion sizes similar to a typically regular chicken salad then they wouldnt experience the same health problems and obesity rates.

Greytfish

Rice, however, for example, is cheap.... and healthier than fries, cheap burgers and the other products high in saturated fat. This however, is an example of lifestyle choice which is generally ignored. Other cuts of chicken, different veg, etc. are also cheap.

Finally, someone actually mentions rice. More digestible than ramen, cheaper, and no sodium overload.

Confuzzled4ever

I'm not missing the point. You're just picking and choosing what you want to respond to. The very poor will sacrifice nutrition for cost. It's very hard to find any *decent* cut of meat for cheap. The ones that are cheap are fatty and low quality. Cheap is relative to how much you have to spend too. If I have 2 dollars i'm not buying meat period. Chicken salad? That would have been a dream when I was living out of my car. You're ignoring the simple truth that if a person is hungry, really hungry, They are not going to care if the food is healthy. They just want to eat. When that was me and someone said "free donuts in the break room" you better believe my butt was there before everyone else and I ate as many as I could stuff in or get away with. And there was often free donuts/pastries/cookies/etc in the break room. I never once recall someone saying "free salad in the break room", but if they had, i'd have been in there just a quick. If someone offered me something to eat, I took it. McDonalds, Taco Bell, Homemade something or other.. didn't matter.. I ate it. I didn't care about nutrition, I didn't care about portion size, I would never have turned it down because it wasn't going meet my nutritional need that day. I don't know that I was obese but I certainly wasn't skinny.

Oh and I didn't go on about eating organic. I mentioned it.. once.

When I was a store manager, we used to have BBQs for our employees every 6 months or so if we made whatever goal we were aiming toward. We used the cheapest highest fat burgers you could find and cheapest buns, cheap pre made potato or macaroni salad, chips and stuff like that. And I can tell you who of my employees were really struggling and who weren't just by who ate what. And those employees came in all shapes and sizes.

There's a whole side of this that is mental. If you don't know that you will be able to eat tomorrow, you bet your butt i'm eating as much as I can today. Then if you get to eat again tomorrow, you'll eat as much as you can again for the same reason. That's an extremely hard lesson to unlearn.

Greytfish

There's no reason one cannot or should not eat cheaper cuts of meat. In fact, that's what the rest of the world's population does generally because they pay more for those cuts of meat than a North American pays for a trimmed chicken breast or an everage grade sirloin. Then....horor of horrors....they prepare it themselves.

If at no other time, this is a pretty good time of year to remember how many people are so poor they go more than a day without food on a routine basis - and how many of them are Americans, and under age 6.

Confuzzled4ever

I didn't say that cheaper cuts of meat shouldn't be eaten. But they are not *healthy* as it is being used in this thread. They prepare it themselves.. means they have the means and ability too. When i had the means to prep food for myself. I did it. When I didn't, how was I supposed to? Osmosis? I live in a city, I see the homeless/poor/hungry everyday. I was basically one of them years ago. i would like to know how the people I see on the streets would buy meat and be able to cook it? I lived in a motel room for two months years ago too. I had a microwave, no stove and a teeny fridge, which I was overly grateful for. Makes it extremely difficult to eat healthy, although easier then my situation before that. Although nutrition and health wasn't my focus. Eating cheap was. Same with the people you reference. They cook and prep whatever food they are given or able to get, because they are hungry. They don't check portion sizes or nutrition. They only want to eat.

This thread is about why are the poor fat. I'm telling you, from experience, the poor who are fat are fat because they are eating what in their mind, might be their last meal for awhile. So they are eating a lot and it's rarely healthy high quality foods. Once you've really lived through that, it's very hard to shake. You're always afraid you'll end up back there. The mental ramifications are much harder to overcome then the any thing else. It's been years since I was in that situation and I still have to remind myself that I don't have to hoard food just in case anymore.

Greytfish

I didn't say that cheaper cuts of meat shouldn't be eaten. But they are not *healthy* as it is being used in this thread.

Pray tell, why?

They prepare it themselves.. means they have the means and ability too.

To a certain extent, you are correct. But, the local homeless cooking or heating foor over a small fire of branches and newspaper would have killed for your microwave.

This thread is about why are the poor fat. I'm telling you, from experience, the poor who are fat are fat because they are eating what in their mind, might be their last meal for awhile. So they are eating a lot and it's rarely healthy high quality foods. Once you've really lived through that, it's very hard to shake. You're always afraid you'll end up back there. The mental ramifications are much harder to overcome then the any thing else. It's been years since I was in that situation and I still have to remind myself that I don't have to hoard food just in case anymore.

I don't know any truly poor people who are fat. I do know less advantaged people who are fat and rationalize it based on poverty, but that's different. You are correct, however, that people who have done without will have a tendency to hoard when an abundance is available, but that's not poverty making someone fat.

WendyTerry420

I didn't say that cheaper cuts of meat shouldn't be eaten. But they are not *healthy* as it is being used in this thread. ...

^^ This has been my point from the beginning. This should be corrected to indicate it is your own subjective opinion because the fact is, the nutritional differences between one cut of meat from another from the same animal is negligible. The "healthier" aspect is just your own perception and entirely unrelated to nutrients.


ETA: The real different in cuts of meat is *taste*

Greytfish

I didn't say that cheaper cuts of meat shouldn't be eaten. But they are not *healthy* as it is being used in this thread. ...

^^ This has been my point from the beginning. This should be corrected to indicate it is your own subjective opinion because the fact is, the nutritional differences between one cut of meat from another from the same animal is negligible. The "healthier" aspect is just your own perception and entirely unrelated to nutrients.


ETA: The real different in cuts of meat is *taste*

This.

And perhaps texture...


Thinking something like a neatly trimmed chicken breast is healthier than say, bone-in thighs is merely cultural (and sometimes socio-economical) bias.

WendyTerry420

I didn't say that cheaper cuts of meat shouldn't be eaten. But they are not *healthy* as it is being used in this thread. ...

^^ This has been my point from the beginning. This should be corrected to indicate it is your own subjective opinion because the fact is, the nutritional differences between one cut of meat from another from the same animal is negligible. The "healthier" aspect is just your own perception and entirely unrelated to nutrients.


ETA: The real different in cuts of meat is *taste*

This.

And perhaps texture...


Thinking something like a neatly trimmed chicken breast is healthier than say, bone-in thighs is merely cultural (and sometimes socio-economical) bias.

At least we agree on something.

Greytfish

There's a first time for everything.

katielauren2001

Bad food is cheaper. In supermarkets foods like ready meals, microwaveable burgers and processed food are always on offer and/or cheaper. For someone in poverty it is hard to afford to buy nutritious food, when you can get cheap, easy to prepare food that is specifically targeted for busy low-income families.