I understand the theory I’m about to propose is politically incorrect, and has already been mentioned, but I’ll add my two cents anyway.
There is indeed a statistical relationship between obesity and poor people – a disproportionate of poor people are obviously fat. But while there is certainly a correlation between obesity and economic status, there is no direct causation, i.e. being poor in-and-of-itself will not make a person fat.
IMO there is a third variable that causes both obesity and low-income: laziness and irresponsibility. A lazy and irresponsible person will never make much money. A lazy and irresponsible person will also not do much in the way of physical activity, will overeat, and in general will not care much about their appearance.
Colibri, the poor people in Panama are skinny because they do not have welfare, food stamps, and subsidized housing. Having obese poor people is a luxury of a first world country, you cannot compare them to people in a third world country.
I’m going to totally disagree with the contention that healthy food is expensive, while unhealthy food is cheap. Prepackaged pre-prepared food is much more expenisve than raw ingredients. The difference is convenience. Healthy convenience food is really expensive, but vegetables, grains and a bit of protein aren’t, they just take a while to cook. If you have an hour or two to cook for yourself every day you can eat healthy nutritious satisfying inexpensive food every day. Staples don’t go bad, you don’t need to buy flour every time you want to make bread or masa every time you want to make tortillas. I guarantee you that eating at McDonalds is more expensive than making red beans and rice at home.
Besides, it isn’t unhealthy food that makes you fat, it is simply too much food. If you eat your Big Mac with large fries you’ll gain weight, if you eat it with small fries you might lose weight. There is some number of calories above which you gain, below which you lose.
You are so right. Since I’ve gotten into fresher foods, sometimes organic ones, I’ve lost the desire and the tolerance for overprocessed things and stuff that comes frozen in a box that must be microwaved. It makes me sick even to think about eating the nasty stuff now.
But then, I am not so poor that I can’t afford the good stuff. As has been pointed out, the poor can’t go off to Trader Joe’s to pick up fresh and/or organic produce for their meals. Or if they did, they’d use up their food budget in no time at all.
[anecdotal]
I just wanted to add some perspective from this side of the pond. I live about a mile from a project, with a large number of people unemployed or on welfare. The number of obese people is significantly larger than in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Now, Sweden is the quintessential welfare state, but it’s been in place for a long time and really obese people have started showing up during the past 20 years or so - so I’m gonna throw out a really big WAG, which might be better suited for GD, but still…
We only got commercial tv in '87. A lot of European countries lagged behind the US (for better and worse). With this, Sweden transformed fairly quickly into a more obvious consumer society and I think there might be a correlation there.
And the others are not absolved from being asked for cites for their opinions, either.
The contention is that laziness is the key factor, instead of the affordability and availability of a high-calorie diet. If that were true, Wesley Clark’s link above implies that well-off people in the US are becoming lazier at a much faster rate than poor people are.
Your request for a cite under these circumstances is faulty. You are misusing it, and it is a cheap rhetorical device in these circumstances. If you wish to ask for facts or reasoning to back up his opinion, that is a separate issue, but you either misunderstand or are deliberately misuing the request for citation here.
The mere fact that you are asking for a citation for someone’s opinion unequivocably shows this. What would you have the poster do, give a citation to someone else giving that opinion? Would you ask him for a cite to why he thinks green is a pretty color? Perhaps you can give a cite for why obesity is not caused by laziness? Or a cite proving that obesity is caused by poverty?
To help, I will state some facts regarding obesity. In order to become obese, you must generally consume more calories than you burn. To avoid consuming more calories than you burn, you may limit your intake of calories, or increase your burn rate through exercise. Limiting your intake of calories requires discipline; even if you only have access to fatty foods because you are poor (I could ask you to support this assertion in greater detail, as I do not believe it), you do not have to eat as much of the fatty food to which you have access. Increasing your burn rate through exercise almost by definition requires not being lazy. People who cannot do either are likely to be either poorly disciplined or lazy.
For the record, I didn’t ask Crafter-Man for a cite, Punoqllads did. And his asking for a cite that there was a causal relationship between laziness, poverty, and obesity was perfectly valid in GQ.
To further help, I will state some additional facts: Americans as a group are more obese than people in most other countries (including some other developed countries); Americans as a group have become more obese over the past few decades; per Wesley Clark’s link, wealthier Americans are becoming obese at a rapider rate than poor people are.
Ergo, by your line of reasoning: (1) Americans are much lazier and less disciplined than people in most other countries; (2) Americans have become lazier and less disciplined in recent decades ; (3) Rich Americans are becoming lazier and less disciplined at a faster rate than poor Americans.
You can’t accept the explanation that poor Americans are more obese because they are lazier and less disciplined than other Americans, unless you also accept that same explanation for why Americans are more obese than people from other countries, or why they are more obese than they were in the past.
Don’t overlook racial components. People of African American descent and other minorities are much more susceptible to obesity. Probably because their ancestors emerged from hunter-gatherer societies more recently where a tendency to store fat is strongly selected for.
My bet is also on assortative mating. e.g. fat people (women especially) are probably much less likely to marry and therefore more likely to be impoverished. If they do have children those children are in turn more likely to be fat and born into impoverished or single parent households.
No, it isn’t. By definition, a citation is a source for fact or a quotation. It is not an argument or reasoning behind an opinion. That is the problem. The use of, “Cite?” as some type of groundbreaking, “for the win,” rhetorical device is hackneyed and overused on this board, and generally misapplied.
What if I do believe that Americans are more obese than people from other countries (who have comparable access to food - countries where you cannot obtain any food are a separate issue) because they are lazier and more ill disciplined, and that they are more obese now than they were in the past because we are now lazier and more ill disciplined? I do not think that’s much of a stretch.
It’s not that you have to buy oil and flour and spices each time you cook- it’s that until you’ve been cooking steadily for a few months, every time you follow a recipe you’re going to end up spending five dollars more than you really can budget for. This was a big problem in my household growing up- Mom would decide to “get responsible” and cook, only to discover that she had to buy boxes of cornstarch and dried oragano and crap like that just to make one recipe- which might not even turn out well. It just wasn’t worth it in the short term, and when you’re paycheck to paycheck, you’ve only got the short term.
URL=http://www.frugal-families.com/Articles/Kitchen/wellstockedpantry.htm]here is a “frugal” list of what a well stocked pantry should have. Even buying two of these things in bulk will kill a day’s budget.
[/quote]
The rest of the post made it sound like most US poor people are hovering on the edge of starvation. I would respond, but if anything would send this thread to GD or the Pit, it would be that.
[/quote]
Do you not think there are hungry in America? There is absolutely no cash assistance availible to able-bodied people without children. Food stamps are not availble to people that have even vaguely decent cars. Would you sell your car (and likely your way to be able to work) if you were in what you hoped was a temporary bout of poverty? The poor don’t starve- but they do know every bakery in the area that has a clean bread-only dumpster. The know what it’s like to choose the ninty-nine cent Big Grab chips over the three dollar sandwich. They know what it’s like to seek out jobs in grocery stores and restraunts because they could use the free meals.
And on that last one, the poor don’t get hired on at the restraunts that provide healthy employee meals. You should see the lengths Denny’s employees go through to get a meal that isn’t pure crap.
This is nothing more than a nit-pick. On this board, a request for a “cite” is a shorthand for providing some supporting data or reasoning for a stated position. It is perfectly valid in this context.
What about in Third World countries, where the upper classes are relatively more obese than poor people? Is their fatness due to laziness too?
I wouldn’t say that was probable. I wouldn’t even say it was possible.
First off we need to understand that most African Americans are from west Africa and have been agriculturalists for about 6000 years. In contrast most white Americans are from central and western Europe and have been agriculturalists for between 5 and 8000 years. IOW in many cases the ancestors of white Americans were HGs far more recently than the ancestors of Black Americans. Moreover even if it were uniform the maximum difference of just 2000 years is far to short to produce any noticeable genetic shift of that type. 2000 years is akin to seriously suggesting that in Julius Ceasar’s day the people of West Africa were genetically significantly different to what they are today.
The next big problem is the assumption that HGs need to store fat more than agriculturalists. In fact exactly the opposite is true. HGs regulate there populations to near or slightly below the carrying capacity of the worst seasons. As a result they suffer only very low absolute and relative mortality as a result of droughts or unseasonal winters. In contrast agriculturalists almost universally abide by a populate and subdue principle, with great store placed in the number of children a couple produces. As a result the population is almost perpetually well above worst season capacity and droughts and hard winters result in the losses of large numbers of people. Agriculturalist societies can lose as much as 50% of the population to lack of food, something that is never, ever seen in HG societies. Famine is a feature of agricultural societies, not of HG society. If your genetic argument had any merit whatsoever then we would in fact expect those people who had most recently been HGs to be less predisposed towards storing fat, but even this is not the case.
Is there any evidence at all to support this idea?
Even if we accept the idea that fat people are significantly less likely to marry, which I don’t, we are still left with the massive problem that most people gain weight with age. As a result a man can easily marry as a slim 25 year old and become a father as an overweight 35 year old.
Then we have to contend with the idea that being single= being impoverished. I find that very hard to believe and would have thought exactly the opposite was true, that single people on average had slightly more money than married couples because most single people aren’t supporting children.
Then we need to contend with the implication that fat parents beget fat children. Is there any evidence at all to support this claim?
No, it isn’t. Words have meaning. Some words are more flexible than others. Asking for a “cite” has a specific meaning. On this board, it does not mean provide supportive reasoning, it means, “I’m going to try to use this clever trick I half understood from my years of academia, and ask you to provide a reference for a non-factual opinion.” That is when it is a cheap rhetorical device.
Though I think it is overused for an internet message board (even one dedicated to the truth, or what have you), I have far less of a problem when it is actually used so that someone can find the source of a fact. I also have far less of a problem when someone simply says, “What is your reasoning/argument/logic for that?”
It is a joke to say, “Please provide me with a reference for your opinion.” It would be less irritating if people here really did just use it as a shorthand, and not as a gamey attempt to win arguments by making someone come up with an internet link for an opinion.
Perhaps it is because the poor there can not afford enough to get fat, or actually need to work at jobs demanding physical labor such that they burn it off? I.e. they are not as lazy as the rich in those countries?
Third World countries do not have a social safety net to save you (and let you be fat) if you are unwilling to work or unable to buy food.