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.
Cancer Research UK Controversial Ads - Thoughts?
Replies
-
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.
Increasing NEAT also has the same benefits, for example, moving from Sedentary (accounts for approx 3000 steps per day and under) to Lightly Active (5-7000 steps per day) would increase someones net intake from BMR x 1.25 to BMR x 1.4 less a deficit.
So if Jane Doe has a BMR of 1600 cals, by moving more throughout her day, she goes from a maintenance intake of 2000 to 2240 and losing a pound per week on 1740 instead of 1500 calories without going anywhere near a gym/bike/etc, still gets the benefits of moving more (better cardio health, etc) and doesn't cost a penny.
But that's the point - you are not burning 500 kcal a day by doing an extra 3000 steps at an activity intensity that is barely raising the heart rate (unless maybe you are 300lb or more). Similarly you will get almost zero cardio training effect from this so your are neither burning enough calories nor getting aerobically or anaerobically fitter.
It is all about calories in and calories out - but restricting calories in on its own (including some minor movement changes) just elongates the process and significantly increases the likelihood of Jane Doe falling off the wagon.
Exercising can be brought into everyones lives through long mildly challenging walks or non-competitive cycle rides - you don't need running shoes or a gym membership, but you do need to get the heart going a bit and for a reasonable length of time on a regular basis.0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In my opinion, in the UK, the reason people buy more fast food than fresh is that it's more convenient rather than it being cheaper. Much easier to bang some stuff in the oven and microwave, than cook something from scratch. Not that this is the case for all, but I am sure it's the case for the majority, particularly now we're at the point where in most families both parents are out at work all day and have to choose between spending time with their kids or in the kitchen prepping and making dinner.
I think this is unquestionably the case in the US too. You can cook for a family cheaper than feeding them fast food costs, and stuff like candy/soda is in addition to whatever meals are, so people eating a lot of that stuff are spending more.
That's assuming you have time to cook, can afford the energy costs, have appliances that work in order to cook said food, etc.
True, but the vast majority of people have the appliances (99.9% of households have a refrigerator, 99.7% have cooking appliances), and cooking does not have to take much time. There are going to be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the societal cause of obesity is that it's too expensive to eat healthfully, as was suggested above.
I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
I would question those statistics actually, there are lots and lots of homeless families stuck in hostels and b+bs who dont have access to fridges or freezers or adequate cooking or storage facilities. Even those who arent in temporary accommodation, they are often in rented accommodation with possibly a lack of facilities.
In practice it is 'easy' to cook up a batch of bean/lentil based casseroles/soups or cheap chicken stew type dishes and have that throughout the week. But it takes appliances and storage to do that, its also quite boring to eat the same thing day in and day out.
Ive seen the ads and they are part of many factors which for me has made me commit to being rid of this fat once and for all. However what has helped me is coming off my anti deprssants which used to make my appetite out of control. I hope I dont need to go back on them as this has happened before, I come off them, lose weight, get ill again and have to go back on them and put all the weight back on due to my cravings.4 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In my opinion, in the UK, the reason people buy more fast food than fresh is that it's more convenient rather than it being cheaper. Much easier to bang some stuff in the oven and microwave, than cook something from scratch. Not that this is the case for all, but I am sure it's the case for the majority, particularly now we're at the point where in most families both parents are out at work all day and have to choose between spending time with their kids or in the kitchen prepping and making dinner.
I think this is unquestionably the case in the US too. You can cook for a family cheaper than feeding them fast food costs, and stuff like candy/soda is in addition to whatever meals are, so people eating a lot of that stuff are spending more.
That's assuming you have time to cook, can afford the energy costs, have appliances that work in order to cook said food, etc.
True, but the vast majority of people have the appliances (99.9% of households have a refrigerator, 99.7% have cooking appliances), and cooking does not have to take much time. There are going to be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the societal cause of obesity is that it's too expensive to eat healthfully, as was suggested above.
I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
3 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.
Increasing NEAT also has the same benefits, for example, moving from Sedentary (accounts for approx 3000 steps per day and under) to Lightly Active (5-7000 steps per day) would increase someones net intake from BMR x 1.25 to BMR x 1.4 less a deficit.
So if Jane Doe has a BMR of 1600 cals, by moving more throughout her day, she goes from a maintenance intake of 2000 to 2240 and losing a pound per week on 1740 instead of 1500 calories without going anywhere near a gym/bike/etc, still gets the benefits of moving more (better cardio health, etc) and doesn't cost a penny.
But that's the point - you are not burning 500 kcal a day by doing an extra 3000 steps at an activity intensity that is barely raising the heart rate (unless maybe you are 300lb or more). Similarly you will get almost zero cardio training effect from this so your are neither burning enough calories nor getting aerobically or anaerobically fitter.
It is all about calories in and calories out - but restricting calories in on its own (including some minor movement changes) just elongates the process and significantly increases the likelihood of Jane Doe falling off the wagon.
Exercising can be brought into everyones lives through long mildly challenging walks or non-competitive cycle rides - you don't need running shoes or a gym membership, but you do need to get the heart going a bit and for a reasonable length of time on a regular basis.
No but you're burning a little more without creating a higher appetite (which is why a lot of people fail at weight loss when trying to do it by exercising). People who are entirely sedentary are going to find it hard to stick at exercise routines, I see my friends do it every January, starting by just incorporating more activity into a normal day can lead to an interest in becoming more and more active, progressing from just moving around that extra bit to more challenging walks or an interest in intentional exercise. Basically learning to crawl before you can run.1 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.
Increasing NEAT also has the same benefits, for example, moving from Sedentary (accounts for approx 3000 steps per day and under) to Lightly Active (5-7000 steps per day) would increase someones net intake from BMR x 1.25 to BMR x 1.4 less a deficit.
So if Jane Doe has a BMR of 1600 cals, by moving more throughout her day, she goes from a maintenance intake of 2000 to 2240 and losing a pound per week on 1740 instead of 1500 calories without going anywhere near a gym/bike/etc, still gets the benefits of moving more (better cardio health, etc) and doesn't cost a penny.
But that's the point - you are not burning 500 kcal a day by doing an extra 3000 steps at an activity intensity that is barely raising the heart rate (unless maybe you are 300lb or more). Similarly you will get almost zero cardio training effect from this so your are neither burning enough calories nor getting aerobically or anaerobically fitter.
It is all about calories in and calories out - but restricting calories in on its own (including some minor movement changes) just elongates the process and significantly increases the likelihood of Jane Doe falling off the wagon.
Exercising can be brought into everyones lives through long mildly challenging walks or non-competitive cycle rides - you don't need running shoes or a gym membership, but you do need to get the heart going a bit and for a reasonable length of time on a regular basis.
No but you're burning a little more without creating a higher appetite (which is why a lot of people fail at weight loss when trying to do it by exercising). People who are entirely sedentary are going to find it hard to stick at exercise routines, I see my friends do it every January, starting by just incorporating more activity into a normal day can lead to an interest in becoming more and more active, progressing from just moving around that extra bit to more challenging walks or an interest in intentional exercise. Basically learning to crawl before you can run.
That is so true, my exercise of choice is swimming but it actually makes me put on weight because I just cant stop eating if I regularly swim.0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In my opinion, in the UK, the reason people buy more fast food than fresh is that it's more convenient rather than it being cheaper. Much easier to bang some stuff in the oven and microwave, than cook something from scratch. Not that this is the case for all, but I am sure it's the case for the majority, particularly now we're at the point where in most families both parents are out at work all day and have to choose between spending time with their kids or in the kitchen prepping and making dinner.
I think this is unquestionably the case in the US too. You can cook for a family cheaper than feeding them fast food costs, and stuff like candy/soda is in addition to whatever meals are, so people eating a lot of that stuff are spending more.
That's assuming you have time to cook, can afford the energy costs, have appliances that work in order to cook said food, etc.
True, but the vast majority of people have the appliances (99.9% of households have a refrigerator, 99.7% have cooking appliances), and cooking does not have to take much time. There are going to be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the societal cause of obesity is that it's too expensive to eat healthfully, as was suggested above.
I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
I would question those statistics actually, there are lots and lots of homeless families stuck in hostels and b+bs who dont have access to fridges or freezers or adequate cooking or storage facilities. Even those who arent in temporary accommodation, they are often in rented accommodation with possibly a lack of facilities.
In practice it is 'easy' to cook up a batch of bean/lentil based casseroles/soups or cheap chicken stew type dishes and have that throughout the week. But it takes appliances and storage to do that, its also quite boring to eat the same thing day in and day out.
Ive seen the ads and they are part of many factors which for me has made me commit to being rid of this fat once and for all. However what has helped me is coming off my anti deprssants which used to make my appetite out of control. I hope I dont need to go back on them as this has happened before, I come off them, lose weight, get ill again and have to go back on them and put all the weight back on due to my cravings.
Homeless wouldn't count as "households" I don't think (also, are about 0.17% of the population), and 99.7 does allow for a lot of families who don't have cooking appliances given total population, but the point is that we cannot say those things have a meaningful effect on the obesity stats.
It is false to say (as the original post I was responding to was suggesting) that people are obese because fast food is cheaper than "eating healthy." Not only is that just not true as a general rule, but of course you don't have to eat any particular diet to lose weight.
I am not saying that losing weight is always easy or that having other life stresses won't make it harder (I think there are many reasons obesity is somewhat correlated with lower incomes), but that the problem is NOT that fast food is too cheap or that "eating healthy" is somehow incredibly expensive. (And food is actually not more expensive than in the past, but the opposite, if adjusted for overall price/wage increases.)
I find the argument that it's supposedly too hard to eat healthfully because one can get a 99 cent burger at McD's baffling. Again, if you price it out it's not actually cheaper to eat at McD's, especially if you make sure to include veg and so on, but even more that McD's is pretty cheap doesn't make other foods more expensive. It's a pet peeve of an argument.5 -
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.3
-
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.
How could homeless people be included as a household in demographic surveys? How would a researcher decide how to measure each household if they are in a shelter or actually on the street? Do researchers just use a recently arrived at statistic for how many people are homeless in the study area, consider each adult a household, and assume they don't have appliances? These are honest questions - I would assume homeless people aren't included in statistics that go by household.6 -
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.
How could homeless people be included as a household in demographic surveys? How would a researcher decide how to measure each household if they are in a shelter or actually on the street? Do researchers just use a recently arrived at statistic for how many people are homeless in the study area, consider each adult a household, and assume they don't have appliances? These are honest questions - I would assume homeless people aren't included in statistics that go by household.
Well if you rent a room say, or are in a b+b, then you are a household. So census returns for example will record the 'household' wherever they are living whether that be in a massive house or hostel room.
People on the street tend to be single (generally speaking). A household doesnt mean you live in a house, its a group of people who live together, or a single person.
I work with children and families many of whom are in dire deprivation, so many of our families have accommodation that is either temporary, or sofa surfing or hostel based or just poor quality. Most of whom dont have methods of cooking or storing food (or washing their clothes having to ask others to do that for them).
I dont know what the technical answers are in terms of researchers as Im not one. I might do a bit of googling to find out. I know surveys of poverty in the UK do apply to homeless households (which does sound an oxymoron) and that what often comes out of that is the lack of cooking and storage facilities.4 -
Well I have to take it back that I will find out via google, Im now overloaded with search results about microwaves, tumble driers and dishwashers. Its appliance overload for me! I give up!0
-
I don't have a problem with the ads or consider them fat shaming.
I don't either, but I'm seeing a growing perception among the general population to label anything that mentions weight reduction, even in the context of improving health as opposed to body aesthetics, as fat-shaming.6 -
Ok, just MHO... I lost a very good friend to pancreatic cancer... and one of the causes of her cancer (if not the main or even only cause) was her obesity. She had no idea that her weight could make her more prone to cancers... not saying that knowing would have made a difference, but if that ad helps just one person to make a life change, if it saves just one life... no, I don't consider it "fat shaming", I consider it "life saving".18
-
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.
"Households" is a US census category, and that's what the numbers I was citing were talking about. If people are living in a homeless shelter, that could be a household, yes, but it may or may not have facilities for cooking. I have been involved with a couple of shelters where they did not, but breakfast and dinner was provided, as well as lunch bags.
Some percentage of homeless are likely not included in census stats like those I was referring to, since it's hard to get a count of people living on the street or a car, and they do not have categories for those that I've seen. There are efforts to get counts of the homeless apart from that.
The claim that people can't eat healthfully cheaply enough, that fast food is cheaper, and that has a significant effect on obesity rates is precisely the argument I was responding to (I know it was not raised by you, you responded to my post) -- the argument that it's too expensive for people to eat healthfully because fast food is allegedly cheaper (sometimes it's about cheap snacks and candy instead).3 -
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.
How could homeless people be included as a household in demographic surveys? How would a researcher decide how to measure each household if they are in a shelter or actually on the street? Do researchers just use a recently arrived at statistic for how many people are homeless in the study area, consider each adult a household, and assume they don't have appliances? These are honest questions - I would assume homeless people aren't included in statistics that go by household.
Well if you rent a room say, or are in a b+b, then you are a household. So census returns for example will record the 'household' wherever they are living whether that be in a massive house or hostel room.
People on the street tend to be single (generally speaking). A household doesnt mean you live in a house, its a group of people who live together, or a single person.
I work with children and families many of whom are in dire deprivation, so many of our families have accommodation that is either temporary, or sofa surfing or hostel based or just poor quality. Most of whom dont have methods of cooking or storing food (or washing their clothes having to ask others to do that for them).
I dont know what the technical answers are in terms of researchers as Im not one. I might do a bit of googling to find out. I know surveys of poverty in the UK do apply to homeless households (which does sound an oxymoron) and that what often comes out of that is the lack of cooking and storage facilities.
From a the US census American Community Survey 2013-17 5-year-estimate (rounded):
5.7% mobile or other housing. (Possibly relevant)
2.1% no bedroom
99.6% with complete plumbing facilities
99.2% with complete kitchen facilities.
So again, although I am not minimizing it for people in the situation, the lack of kitchen facilities does not seem to have a significant effect on the obesity rate.7 -
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.
"Households" is a US census category, and that's what the numbers I was citing were talking about. If people are living in a homeless shelter, that could be a household, yes, but it may or may not have facilities for cooking. I have been involved with a couple of shelters where they did not, but breakfast and dinner was provided, as well as lunch bags.
Some percentage of homeless are likely not included in census stats like those I was referring to, since it's hard to get a count of people living on the street or a car, and they do not have categories for those that I've seen. There are efforts to get counts of the homeless apart from that.
The claim that people can't eat healthfully cheaply enough, that fast food is cheaper, and that has a significant effect on obesity rates is precisely the argument I was responding to (I know it was not raised by you, you responded to my post) -- the argument that it's too expensive for people to eat healthfully because fast food is allegedly cheaper (sometimes it's about cheap snacks and candy instead).
Sorry I meant that I didnt claim (and dont claim) that eating health isnt cheaper, it is cheaper.0 -
poisonesse wrote: »Ok, just MHO... I lost a very good friend to pancreatic cancer... and one of the causes of her cancer (if not the main or even only cause) was her obesity. She had no idea that her weight could make her more prone to cancers... not saying that knowing would have made a difference, but if that ad helps just one person to make a life change, if it saves just one life... no, I don't consider it "fat shaming", I consider it "life saving".
0 -
I agree that fast foods cost more than cooking, I'm a person whose always cooked for my family of 6 & now for just the two of us, my parents always cooked so it got handed down I think. What I want to add is I take care of a lady who loves fast foods & I take her out to eat(or pick it up) 3 days a week to get burger & fries, KFC & such and also a sweet drink from Starbucks. she is disabled due to a stroke & us unable to exercise at all. she is not overweight. She never eats the full fast food meal at one sitting. She has a little bit of fries, a half burger & saves the rest. she also never drinks water but root beer or orange juice. When I take her shopping at walmart, she buys 2 hot dogs, a small container of pasta salad, 2 donuts, 3 of those big cookies, ice cream & 3 of those small chocolate pies & 2 m&m's candies- every week. She still has some the following week that need to be thrown out so having observed this for over a year it does depend on how much a person eats4
-
I'm going to chime in on the perceived "high cost" of "healthy" foods. I live in the Northeast US. Sometimes I'm astounded at how cheap some good foods are!! Bananas - about 8 cents each. 10 pounds of baking potatoes for $1.50. Low-fat yogurt - 69 cents/container. A large package of pre-washed baby spinach - $2.49. These are just a few that stick out in my mind from my last shopping trip. I don't think "fast food" is cheap at all. My husband (that skinny poop) just brought home his lunch: a Whopper, large fries and a Coke - over $10.00!! My lunch consisted of a veggie burger on a roll with spinach, a banana and yogurt. Cost: about $2.6
-
The most vocal opponents of this ad campaign come from the so-called "HAES movement" HAES stands for "health at every size". The alleged premise of the HAES movement is that weight is not necessarily an indicator of overall health, and that people should feel good about themselves regardless of their size. Now, there are some people who fall outside the norm BMI-wise and are very fit. They're usually very muscular individuals, such as body builders. However, the most vocal members of the HAES movement are all very morbidly obese people who are clearly in denial. Some of them are even already immobile due to their weight and see no issue with that. They even cite junk science to support their belief that there is no connection between obesity and diabetes, heart disease, or any other obesity-related malady you can think of. These people are selling a dangerous delusion to impressionable people.12
-
I think this is unquestionably the case in the US too. You can cook for a family cheaper than feeding them fast food costs, and stuff like candy/soda is in addition to whatever meals are, so people eating a lot of that stuff are spending more.
That's assuming you have time to cook, can afford the energy costs, have appliances that work in order to cook said food, etc.
And have the self-discipline to choose foods that aren't as tasty. Unfortunately that's lacking in many people.
2 -
It's possible to eat fast food and NOT be obese. Just sayin'...8
-
Screw cancer...worst word in the world in my book!3
-
But that's more likely because of EDUCATION along with the non showing of ads. When California first banned smoking in bars and in restaurants as well as removed dispensing machines, there was an out roar of non support by establishments saying they would lose business when in actuality it increased. And educating our kids more on the dangers of smoking along with the "yeech" with it turned off a lot of young kids. While it's true outta sight outta mind helps, obesity stems from eating. And people HAVE to eat to live so it's much much harder to stave that off and get people in the right mind set sometimes. Obesity happens not because people want it to, but usually there's something mentally (unless there's a health issue) they are trying to deal with and haven't found the way to fix it.tinkerbellang83 wrote: »Advertising this is great. The only issue I've ever found with certain advertising is that people who don't care, still won't care. Surgeon General writes on cigarette packs of the dangers of smoking. How many smokers really care? Here we in CA we have a warning at all fast food drive thrus (Prop 65) that states there may be cancer causing chemicals in some of the food. Fast food is still booming business in the US.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But it does seem to be working in the long run, far less young people take up smoking and the number of smokers has dramatically dropped in the UK & Ireland (not sure about the rest of the EU) since it was banned in public places and cigarette advertising was banned on TV/sports events/etc.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-smoking/statistics-on-smoking-england-2018/part-4-smoking-patterns-in-children
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Whitney Thore is one of those people. Nice person, great personality which is why she has a TV show (My Big Fat Fabulous Life), but she's had episodes of passing out and going to hospitals because for awhile she denied her weight affected her dancing. At 370lbs + while she admits her weight is an issue with health, she still endorses the HAES movement and is looked at as a good spokesperson for it. Lots of drama in this girl's life.SeilaPullip wrote: »The most vocal opponents of this ad campaign come from the so-called "HAES movement" HAES stands for "health at every size". The alleged premise of the HAES movement is that weight is not necessarily an indicator of overall health, and that people should feel good about themselves regardless of their size. Now, there are some people who fall outside the norm BMI-wise and are very fit. They're usually very muscular individuals, such as body builders. However, the most vocal members of the HAES movement are all very morbidly obese people who are clearly in denial. Some of them are even already immobile due to their weight and see no issue with that. They even cite junk science to support their belief that there is no connection between obesity and diabetes, heart disease, or any other obesity-related malady you can think of. These people are selling a dangerous delusion to impressionable people.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
Yep. One the scale it says I am at over 200lbs and 5'7", but that muscle is deceiving to the scale. And I eat fast food at least once a week.It's possible to eat fast food and NOT be obese. Just sayin'...
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
SNAP does not pay for fast food but it will pay for unhealthy, quick to prepare junk food you can buy in the grocery store. You can get generic/store brand stuff pretty cheap on sale.
Also, SNAP is taken at convenience stores that you'll find in inner city food deserts where major grocery stores are absent. There is a really good series called Weight of the Nation that explains how at these stores the cost of an apple is extremely high compared to the cost of a single size bag of chips. When children and teens go to these stores on their way to school and have a limited amount of money to purchase their lunches, they can buy more junk food than healthy food. This is because the food companies purposely lower the prices of junk food in the inner cities to get kids to buy it.7 -
cbstewart88 wrote: »I'm going to chime in on the perceived "high cost" of "healthy" foods. I live in the Northeast US. Sometimes I'm astounded at how cheap some good foods are!! Bananas - about 8 cents each. 10 pounds of baking potatoes for $1.50. Low-fat yogurt - 69 cents/container. A large package of pre-washed baby spinach - $2.49. These are just a few that stick out in my mind from my last shopping trip. I don't think "fast food" is cheap at all. My husband (that skinny poop) just brought home his lunch: a Whopper, large fries and a Coke - over $10.00!! My lunch consisted of a veggie burger on a roll with spinach, a banana and yogurt. Cost: about $2.
agreed. I put myself through grad school (a Ph.D. program) while living on a measly stipend of 16k a year for five years. I was a single mom. I didn't receive any alimony or child support from my ex to supplement this income (long story...it would have bankrupted him and he would have lost the house--our son's childhood home--so we agreed that this would be our arrangement for the sake of our son in the long term). Since I was a full-time student I didn't qualify for other assistance.
My point is... I ate a primarily vegetable, egg, and bean-based diet. I bought vegetables at places like Aldi or Produce Junction (They sell in-season fruits and veggies in bulk prices but are in less-than-perfect condition). Most had bruises on them and I could only buy what was in season--but it would only cost me about $20-30 to buy two week's worth of fresh veggies (fruit was more expensive). I bought dented cans from the rack located at the back of the grocery store--my husband still teases me to this day about my "dented can buying" habit. (I'm proud of it!) Living on that 16k required being creative with what I could buy/cook. I would make large batches of food at a time and would freeze it. Between classes, teaching, meeting with students, grading, and other responsibilities I had (and this doesn't even count mom-related stuff), I was working about 50-60 hours a week so it's not as though I had a ton of free time on my hands, but hey, I made it work. I found that fast food options were a luxury, not a cheaper option. One meal at a fast food place for my son and I would cost $7-10, whereas I could prepare a week's worth of food with that money.10 -
RagdollCatLady wrote: »I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
SNAP does not pay for fast food but it will pay for unhealthy, quick to prepare junk food you can buy in the grocery store. You can get generic/store brand stuff pretty cheap on sale.
Also, SNAP is taken at convenience stores that you'll find in inner city food deserts where major grocery stores are absent. There is a really good series called Weight of the Nation that explains how at these stores the cost of an apple is extremely high compared to the cost of a single size bag of chips. When children and teens go to these stores on their way to school and have a limited amount of money to purchase their lunches, they can buy more junk food than healthy food. This is because the food companies purposely lower the prices of junk food in the inner cities to get kids to buy it.
This is the problem and while technically it is cheaper to eat lower calorie/home cooked food, if you are grabbing something that you need to eat while on a lunch break, walking home or whatever the situation is where you dont have your own food, you're going to go for the chips (I dont know if you mean crisps but the concept is the same) as an apple is not going either fill you up, give you enough calories or satiate you. But the crisps/chips might/will do.
When Im out and about and want something hot to eat the only place I can quickly grab something to take with me is some where that sells fast food or pasties or hot junk food. I cant get something satisfying but healthy for the same money.0 -
I think cooking styles should be more promoted to support cheap eating. No one talks about slow cookers in recipes or even on cooking programmes. Maybe they're not fashionable. But if you have a lack of time, cheap ingredients then just bung em in the slow cooker before you go out and then by the time you get home you have a lovely stew/casserole or whatever.
Having said that we have a crock pot and I hate the bloody thing, it makes everything taste the same but I do plan on doing some more experimentation as my mum's seems to work properly.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions