What's up with poverty and obesity?

[even_sven]

Sure, anyone can lose some amount of weight by making lifestyle changes.

But there is this thing called priorities. Sure, you won’t die if you go to bed hungry. But you’re not going to last long if you go to work hungry and can’t concentrate. Many of the poor have more important things to devote their energies to than weight loss- like finding good work, raising their families, and otherwise dealing with their lives. Among many groups of the poor, for various reasons including ethnicity, obesisity isn’t as stigmatized and thiness doesn’t have the same end all and be all status as it does in more WASPy circles. Going on a diet has an almost holy air in much of middle class America, but in poorer areas it is considered an inefficient use of energy. Added to that is the fact that long arms of the multi-billion dollar diet and health food industry are still a long ways away from the inner city, and you have a recipe for a disporportionate amount of obseseness.

[drachillix]

@rjung

Only “bulk sections” I’ve ever seen in a mainstream supermarket have been for candies (you bag your own candy, then pay by the pound).

Dunno what their area is but a chain called Winco just moved into our area (central CA) and has several hundred items sold in self serve bulk bins. Many of the items are things like cornbread, muffin, or pancake mix in addition to basics like rice, several types of pasta, about 30-40 basic types of spices. Need 1/2 an ounce of peppercorns…no problem. Wanna make cornbread, with a little planning you can buy just what you need for 1 recipie. I personally hate having to buy large quantities of some staples just because I don’t use much, Cornmeal for example, if I need half a cup I can get it there and not have 7/8 of a small box of cornmeal sitting in my cabinet for the next 6-8 months. I could seek out recipies to make using it but I would rather buy small quantities and if I have 1/2 cup left over I don’t feel so bad about tossing it.

If you have one nearby take a look, between this section, produce, and meats, I can do 95% of my shopping. They also sell little inexpensive plastic shakers for spices. I already have about a dozen of them with various spices that I bought maybe 1/4 of a shaker worth of the spice. When I use it…I will get more or wash out the shaker and try something else for a while. Makes it alot easier to spend $0.49 on a shaker and buy $0.25 worth of a seasoning you have never tried rather than $3.49 for the same stuff in a fancy display and a little glass jar that you might use 1/4 of and decide it wasn’t so great after all.

Also for cooking on a budget, NEVER underestimate the value of salt. In ways I blame salt more for the crack like addictiveness of fast food and processed foods than any trick marketing campaign. Alot of salt certainly isn’t good for you, but you are in control of your intake rather than some guy at Uberburger. A little can make a big difference in the flavor of your cooking. If you tend to avoid using any as I once did, try using a tiny bit as an experiment and comparing. Try cooking something like a piece of steak or chicken and try some plain, try some with a tiny bit of salt, try some with a little more salt, which one tastes more like something yummy from a restauraunt or fast food place. Its freaky…

[bibliophage]

@Zoe

How did this thread get to stay in GQ this long?

Because I’m 70 lb. overlazy.

Off to Great Debates.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[TonyF]

@even sven

But there is this thing called priorities. Sure, you won’t die if you go to bed hungry. But you’re not going to last long if you go to work hungry and can’t concentrate. Many of the poor have more important things to devote their energies to than weight loss- like finding good work, raising their families, and otherwise dealing with their lives.

That pretty much details my opinion.

As a busy college student, I’ve found that although I could spend an average $1 and have rice, vegetables, and chicken for dinner, I could spend the same amount on a TV dinner and:

[ol]
[li]Spend no time or money on an initial outlay or preparation,[/li][li]Could forget about thinking up or finding recipes,[/li][li]Could look no further than the frozen food aisle for a wide selection of entrees,[/li][li]Do little more than put it in the freezer after shopping,[/li][li]Could keep it in the freezer for perhaps months,[/li][li]Do little more than put it in the microwave while doing other things, like crack open the books, check email, etc, and have a meal ready for me.[/li][/ol]

I have yet to find a healthy alternative that is as cheap or cheaper, is as easy or easier, and is as tasty or tastier.

That I devote my time to school and odd jobs doesn’t make much a difference, as I would assume the typical poverty-stricken person is as busy or busier trying to keep up what little they have as I do studying and doing odd jobs. That tends to discourage exercising, keeping a food diary, etc. Simply put, I’ve got more important shit to do.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@Crafter_Man

Back to the OP:

Why are so many poor people fat?

As I have repeatedly stated, it takes an enormous amount of discipline and strength to lose weight and keep it off. If a person possesses the discipline and strength to lose weight and keep it off, then they probably also possess the discipline and strength to make money.

Naysayers will point out that there are a lot of middle and upper class people who are fat. True. But it is possible for a person to be disciplined in some areas and not others. But the point is this: if a person is undisciplined and weak in all aspects of their life, then there’s a good chance they will be poor, and fat, and lazy, and uneducated, etc. Hence the reason why poor people tend to be fat.

This is good. This is what I was thinking in the earlier part of this thread but didn’t quite type out.

Poeple who don’t believe this;
Ad an incective for dieting. Say, a million dollars.
Offer a million bucks to the average obese person and tell them that if they can get down to a ‘normal’ weight level within a year and maintain it for another year, they will be given a million bucks. How high would the success rate be then? Where would these miraculous levels of willpower and discipline suddenly come from?

[SlyFrog]

@uglybeech

There’s no such animal as I’ve pointed out 4 times 1 2 3 4. There’s virtually no human on earth whose energy balance over their lifetime is measurably different from yours. It could be that such a person is “flagrantly overeating,” but if they are they’re by necessity doing a lot more physical work (exercise) than you are to compensate. On the other hand if they’re doing no exercise whatsoever they have to be eating very little to compensate.

You keep talking about the minute difference between what fat people eat and healthy people eat. Do you have some support for your assertion that someone who is 50 or 100 pounds overweight is eating an immeasurable amount more food each day? I do not think that someone who ways 50 pounds more is eating only 16 calories more per day (presuming the exact same level of physical activity), but I’m willing to be proven wrong.

[Crafter_Man]

SlyFrog:

I think what uglybeech is saying is the following:

1. If your weight is not changing, then energy in = energy out, regardless of how much you weigh.

2. If your weight is changing, then energy in ≠ energy out, regardless of how much you weigh.

But while this may be true, we must admit that a person can lose weight and keep it off. We know this is true based on real-life examples. We also know how they did it: they lost weight and kept it off via a regimented diet and exercise program. And it goes without saying that a person must be disciplined in order to remain on the program. Why this is so difficult to comprehend is beyond me.

[Crafter_Man]

even seven:

You touched on a point I have alluded to in several of my posts.

Middle and upper-class folks tend to put a lot of value on thinness, and view fat people as lazy and undisciplined. And if a middle or upper-class person is fat, they tend to feel guilty, embarrassed, or self-conscience about it. As a result, the people in this group tend to put a lot of effort into weight-loss programs.

Poor folks, on the other hand, may not have the same attitude as middle and upper-class when it comes to weight. Indeed, many of the poor people I know appear to have no qualms about being fat. Some of them even appear to be proud of it.

But while this theory may have merit, I also believe laziness is also an important factor.

A little story:

I have a 40-year-old friend/acquaintance who is chronically poor. He is also somewhat lazy… he sits around much of the day playing video games on his computer, and has never held a job for more than 6 months. He’s also obese.

He once expressed an interest in losing weight. I gave him all kinds of advice. “You need to throw away your deep fryer… you need to stop eating fat-laden foods… you need to stop eating ice-cream and cake… you need to get on an exercise program.”

He made some half-ass attempts at changing his diet and exercising, but they never lasted more than a couple days.

I then asked myself, “Why was he not able to lose weight?” The answer was exceedingly obvious: He is a lazy and undisciplined person. This explains a lot of what goes on in his life, e.g. it explains why he can’t hold a job, it explains why he never finished college, it explains why his house is in deplorable shape, it explains why he chronically poor, and it explains why he is fat.

So when it comes to this friend/acquaintance of mine, I am 100% convinced that the reason he is fat is because he is lazy and undisciplined. So is he alone? No - I know other people in the same situation. In fact, I am of the opinion that most chronically poor people are lazy and undisciplined, which explains a lot of what goes on in their lives, including obesity.

[SlyFrog]

@Crafter_Man

SlyFrog:

I think what uglybeech is saying is the following:

1. If your weight is not changing, then energy in = energy out, regardless of how much you weigh.

2. If your weight is changing, then energy in ? energy out, regardless of how much you weigh.

But while this may be true, we must admit that a person can lose weight and keep it off. We know this is true based on real-life examples. We also know how they did it: they lost weight and kept it off via a regimented diet and exercise program. And it goes without saying that a person must be disciplined in order to remain on the program. Why this is so difficult to comprehend is beyond me.

No, I understand what you are saying, but uglybeech was expressly stating that the amount of calories a fat person consumes is almost imperceptible from that of a thin person. This does not at all comport with my understanding, which was in part formed on conversations with nutrionalists and information such as this: Caloric requirement to maintain weight.

From the information on that page, it seems (I understand the calculations are rough) that a person who should weigh about 150 pounds should be eating about 1,800 calories per day. If he is 50 pounds overweight, that means he is eating roughly 2,400 calories per day. That’s 600 extra calories per day.

That’s a hell of a long way from it being so minute as to be impossible to determine. It is a lot closer to my belief that the guy who is 50 pounds overweight is eating the equivalent of an extra Big Mac or more per day.

So once again, I see a lot of prevarication and obfuscation to avoid the central truth - a decent amount of the weight loss issue is often about shoving away from the table and stuffing your face a bit less.

[GingerOfTheNorth]

@Wesley Clark

People can also avoid cancer through willpower but I don’t go to the cancer ward at the hospital and rudely point that out to sick people. Most diseases are avoidable through willpower, as is poverty, crime, and most other problems if people just tried hard enough to avoid them.

I’d like a cite for this, please. I’d hate to think my close friend died of breast cancer because she just didn’t try not to get it.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Was Wesley referencing giving up smoking? (Just guessing).

[GingerOfTheNorth]

Cancer doesn’t strike only smokers.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Dominic Mulligan

Was Wesley referencing giving up smoking? (Just guessing).

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cancer/publications/reports/vol1_summary.html

Smoking, poor diet (some articles on this subject treat poor diet & obesity as the same thing), lack of exercise and not getting screened properly make up 66% of cancers. If a person went further and avoided environmental factors and read up on esoteric treatments for cancer like usingfolic acid to decrease the risk of colon cancer then the number probably drops by 80% or so.

[Wesley_Clark]

@GingerOfTheNorth

I’d like a cite for this, please. I’d hate to think my close friend died of breast cancer because she just didn’t try not to get it.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_American_Communities_Can_Change_Lifestyle_Habits_to_Prevent_Cancer.asp

“The ACS estimates that one-third of the 500,000 annual cancer deaths in the US are due to poor diet and lack of exercise that leads to excess weight and obesity, while another third is from cigarette smoking.”

I dislike when they treat poor diet and lack of exercise like they only matter when they lead to a lower weight. It was my understanding that studies have shown healthy diet & exercise are good for cancer largely irrelevant of their affect on weight.

[Sage_Rat]

@Wesley Clark

I dislike when they treat poor diet and lack of exercise like they only matter when they lead to a lower weight. It was my understanding that studies have shown healthy diet & exercise are good for cancer largely irrelevant of their affect on weight.

Perhaps. I had heard that sumo wrestlers had amazing life spans, but just now doing a google to verify that–I find that I must reverse the post I was going to write. On a per average basis, lower “caloric intake” looks like it may be more directly linked to lifespan than “exercise and a balanced diet.” Sumo wrestlers have a perfectly good amount of exercise and eat very well rounded diets, but appear to still suffer a -20 year average loss to their lifespan.

Cite.

Of course the main issue of the article is that being skinny doesn’t help much either.

[uglybeech]

@SlyFrog

This does not at all comport with my understanding, which was in part formed on conversations with nutrionalists and information such as this: Caloric requirement to maintain weight.

From the information on that page, it seems (I understand the calculations are rough) that a person who should weigh about 150 pounds should be eating about 1,800 calories per day. If he is 50 pounds overweight, that means he is eating roughly 2,400 calories per day. That’s 600 extra calories per day.

So once again, I see a lot of prevarication and obfuscation to avoid the central truth - a decent amount of the weight loss issue is often about shoving away from the table and stuffing your face a bit less.

I’m not happy about your accusing me of lying. But I won’t complain too much since I’m also happy that you did a little research and made a stab at quantifying the problem. That’s pretty rare.

The problem is, although your cite presents a very elegant theory, their premise is totally wrong. This statement (on which their entire argument is predicated) is just not true:

For each pound of weight that your body carries, it takes about 12 calories per pound per day to keep it alive.

That’s wrong. Fat isn’t metabolically active. Resting metabolism (the calories it takes to keep you alive and the bulk of the calories you burn every day)is almost entirely determined by fat free mass. Equations that predict a rise in resting or basal metabolic rate with weight are just simplifications for the sake of ease of use (since most people don’t know how to measure their fat-free mass). They assume that the body composition (ratio of lean mass to fat mass) doesn’t change with an increase in weight. It just doesn’t hold for fat people though.

In other words the fat you put on doesn’t consume or require “maintenance calories.”

Now of course if you’re much heavier physical activity and exercise will require more physical work which can increase your calorie requirements somewhat. I suppose it’s also reasonable to expect you might put on some muscle mass to do that extra work (which will increase resting metabolism by increasing lean tissue mass). But the whole point of my introducing the energy expenditure issue in the first place was to discredit the laziness argument - and if your argument is that fat people are working harder and getting more muscular I don’t see how that helps your position.

But even all of that is not the main reason that I talked exclusively in terms of energy balance, not calories consumed. I did it because, in the end, when analyzing the significance of obesity as a measure of behavior, it’s the only meaningful number you can conclude. The only number that can be quantified, or even reasonably eestimated. People will first assert that “fat people eat too much” to which the other side will (quite rightly) respond “you can’t say that because metabolism and physical activity vary so much” (and it does, it can vary by 1000 calories in the same person day to day) to which the counter-argument is “ok, but we do know that fat people are eating more than they’re burning.”

And I’m pointing out that that argument is also utterly bogus (and obfuscatory) because when you quanitfy it, that difference is virtually nil as a percentage of total energy consumed. That’s because fat mass is (not represents, but is) the cumulative energy imbalance over a lifetime. What you’re looking at *is * how much that person ate relative in excess of what he burned *over his entire life * - and if you think about the mountains that we all eat over the decades, it ain’t much.

The other interesting issue is when you talk in terms of the tiny error in the energy balance that obesity represents, you see something you don’t see ordinarily. That is the incredible precision with which people are matching their calorie consumption to their energy expenditure (or vice versa) without having to think about it much. No meal plan in the world could match the precision which they’re already maintaining.

but uglybeech was expressly stating that the amount of calories a fat person consumes is almost imperceptible from that of a thin person.

No I never did that. That’s a mischaracterization. I always carefully talked in terms of the energy balance for the reasons I explained above.

[SlyFrog]

@uglybeech

I’m not happy about your accusing me of lying. But I won’t complain too much since I’m also happy that you did a little research and made a stab at quantifying the problem. That’s pretty rare.

Well, I saw you presenting a theory that I’ve never heard of before, and still, to be honest, do not really buy into. But what you wrote below is more comprehensible to me, even if I do not agree with it. I think that you are wrong, but I do not think you are intentionally trying to mislead people.

@uglybeech

The problem is, although your cite presents a very elegant theory, their premise is totally wrong. This statement (on which their entire argument is predicated) is just not true: That’s wrong.

Here is where we disagree. I’ve seen that theory presented in numerous places. I have seen that theory given by several nutritionalists at respected university hospitals. I also believe the theory because it worked for me in practice. This chart from the University of Utah Health Services Center, for example, also appears to say the same thing: PDF Chart

@uglybeech

And I’m pointing out that that argument is also utterly bogus (and obfuscatory) because when you quanitfy it, that difference is virtually nil as a percentage of total energy consumed. That’s because fat mass is (not represents, but is) the cumulative energy imbalance over a lifetime. What you’re looking at *is * how much that person ate relative in excess of what he burned *over his entire life * - and if you think about the mountains that we all eat over the decades, it ain’t much.

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. I think that the fat people I have seen, and having been one myself, eat far more calories than an insubstantial difference in food from fit people on an average day.

@uglybeech

but uglybeech was expressly stating that the amount of calories a fat person consumes is almost imperceptible from that of a thin person.

No I never did that. That’s a mischaracterization. I always carefully talked in terms of the energy balance for the reasons I explained above.

You said this though:

You can’t. You’re talking about a change in lifestyle equivalent to a spoonful of sugar a day. Why do you assume that you could ever tell when the mathematical impossibility of doing so is obvious?

How do you read that other than saying the amount of calories is almost impercetable? What else are you saying when you say it is the equivalent of a spoonful of sugar, and it is a mathematical impossibility to see that for purposes of a lifestyle change? Again, I genuinely do not understand.

[Zoe]

[quote]
Crafter_Man: Um, you appear to be talking about an abnormal physical condition, Zoe.**

That is a virtually meaningless statement. A stuffy nose is an “abnormal physical condition.” Physical addition to carbohydrates is fairly common, but a lot of people are unaware that they have the problem. Something can be done about it, but if the person remains unaware and thinks it’s just a “lack of will power,” that’s no help at all.

Heck, two can play that game… people who have cancer often lose weight. Does that mean cancer gives them discipline and strength?

You think that the search for accurate information is a game? You think that your question is a logical response to mine? Don’t dodge my question and I will answer yours even though it has nothing to do with mine.

We so desperately want to find a nice, feel-good/blame-free/politically-correct reason for why people are fat.

Since that’s not what I wanted or needed or acted upon in my own life and not what you want, why distract from my questions with it? Stick with the questions and the scientific data. This topic was never in the IN MY HUMBLE OPINION FORUM.

But the brutal truth is that people are fat because they eat too much and/or do not get enough exercise.

Oops! You left out a few variables. Did you do that intentionally?

Furthermore, it takes a lot of discipline for a person to permanently change their eating and exercise habits.

Not necessarily.

What did you do? You undoubtedly ate less, or ate better, or increased your level of physical activity.

I tried many ways to lose weight including liquids only for six months. Easy as pie! Piece o’ cake! Will power? Some people would say that it takes will power and discipline to stay on less than 500 calories of liquid a day for six months.

Nope. After the first few weeks, it was so easy that I really didn’t even want to eat or drink the liquids. The doctor in charge of the program made me “refeed” with regular food.

All “will power” disappeared with the reintroduction of carbohydrates in my diet (Hey, I didn’t know!) and I regained the 100 pounds I had lost and, of course, gained still more.

Five years later I had a gastric bypass – R-N-Y. I lost 150 pounds and the gained about 30 pounds back because I still ate compulsively. I don’t know if you understand compulsive behaviors or not, but they are not a matter of self-control in the normal sense of the word. To the casual observer they seem to be, but they are not.

I am satisfied that I would have gained all of my weight back had it not been for a medication that physically affects the brain. That is the same medication that I mentioned earlier that is used to treat seizures.

It controls the compulsion to eat. I’m not hungry. I forget to eat. I also don’t shop as much or smoke as much. Go figure.

So now I have “will power” and discipline again as long as I take my pill once a day. I get to be one of the strong and disciplined people. :rolleyes:

My apologies to all of you who have read this for the fiftieth time. It’s one of my soapboxes.

And I know that the surgery and medication are not for everyone. I wish everyone a success with a healthy life.

Whether you admit it or not, it took dedication and discipline for you to do it.

No. It took ignoring speculation and easy answers and doing some research.

[Garfield226]

@Zoe

Oops! You left out a few variables. Did you do that intentionally?

Which would be…?

[Wesley_Clark]

@Garfield226

Which would be…?

There are an endless list of biochemicals involved in eating. You guys have the libertarian/conservative view that ‘the will’ is some all powerful force that is totally alien from biology and able to subvert it, a horatio alger of eating perspective. It is not, if our biologies were different we would not have willpower. Amoeba do not have willpower because their biologies are different. So you are proposing that an ability based on biology can overcome another force of biology (willpower vs obesity biochemistry). I do not believe this argument because it has failed miserably 95% of the time for the last 100 years. Even if it makes sense on paper when you put it into practice it never works. Ask a torture victim how effective ‘the will’ is at overcoming biological urges.

Zoe: what drug was this? Is it topamax or something else?