I think that should be the question. I returned a couple of weeks ago from being in Japan for several days, and the very first thought I had when I stepped back into the US airport terminal was “my god - look at all the fat people!”
People have said that poor people can’t afford good food and therefore have to eat the less healthful stuff. That’s a bunch of crap. Good, wholesome food is cheap. The problem is that people are just eating too many calories. And so many people nowadays eat fast food regularly, which is loaded with calories, and restaurants now serve gigantic portions. When I was a teenager in the '70s, french fries at the new McDonald’s came in two sizes - regular and large. Kids these days would laugh at what we called the “regular” size of fries - it was a tiny paper envelope. The “large” size was about the size of what they sell now as their smallest.
And it tends to be poorer people because if someone is a not very motivated kind of person to begin with, he ends up being fairly poor, not taking care of himself, letting trash accumulate on his lawn, etc.
I would consider heredity as a factor. Many times wealth and poverty move across generations.
So on one hand you might have a family of peasants who had to make it through famines, floods, long winters, crop failures and so on. Those with a tendency to gain weight (i.e., those who would overeat when they had the opportunity) would have an advantage over those who didn’t.
On the other hand, an affluent family might alway have enough to eat even under the above circumstances.
There was an article in Discover not too long ago where they actually might have discovered a gene that short-circuits the brain’s appetite shut-off, causing a person to chronically overeat, even by just a small amount. The discoverer kept calling it a defect, but it seems to me that it would have been a good adaptation for those peasants, which is why it is now spread in our population.
And now, of course in the U.S. we no longer worry about famines, floods, long winters…
I think CurtC has it here. Now, I’m making generalizations here, but bear with.
Poor people tend to be lazy. Poor fat people are most likely lazy. This of course excludes those with disabilities, thyroid problems, etc. that would also coincide with fat rich people.
But rich people are more likely to be motivated people. Their days are filled with activities, and they’re always on the go. Especially these Hollywood types. As such, their metabolism is more likely to be accelerated, and they’re more likely to be healthy. And I think most people who join gyms or hire trainers do so not so much out of vanity, as a need for a source of energy maintenance.
Um, yeah, I’d say that’s a generalization. I know plenty of poor people who aren’t lazy, including my grandfather. He was an immigrant who, at one point in his life, worked three jobs to support his family. He was able to put all his daughters through college, which I thought was a pretty enlightened (and not lazy) idea. And to sort of respond to the OP, he wasn’t fat. He’s a bit pudgy now, but he’s 85, and a baker, to boot, so I think he comes by it honestly.
It always makes me sad to see poor neighborhoods that are filled with trash, because it’s hard not to jump to the poor-people-are-lazy conclusion. I wonder if it has to do instead with a pervasive feeling of a lack of control over one’s situation on the part of the residents.
I agree with the “nutritious food costs more” argument. I’m not poor, but I work full time and on occasion, I try to eat healthy. I’ve definitely noticed that eating healthy cost WAY more than just grabbing whatever looks good at the grocery store. Fresh vegetables and fruit are quite expensive, especially considering that they don’t last in the fridge. If I don’t eat 'em quick, they go bad.
Secondly, it takes a lot of time and effort to put together 21 meals a week (3 meals a day), all nutritionally balanced and healthy. Figure at least a couple trips to the grocery store (like I said, fruits and veggies don’t last long) plus at least an hour a day spent preparing food. For a working person or a parent at home with 2-3 kids, this is a substantial amount of time. Much easier to make boxed Mac & Cheese, or stop at McDonald’s.
I figure if I notice the price difference and the vast amount of time I put in during my “eating healthy” stages, someone making poverty wages and raising kids is much more aware of it than I am. It’s hard work to eat right in this day and age, and it’s no wonder many people choose not to put the effort in.
whatta crock of shit. Typical Reaganyouth thinking, “the poor are poor because they LIKE being poor” or " we do not need Miranda because we do not arrest innocent people"
I suppose it is far easier to blame the poor for their situation than it is to face the complex and far more
difficult task of identifying and addressing the root problems of inequity in our society, easier bad-mouthing
the poor, not the system which holds them in poverty,what about the detrimental impact which things such
as low wages, lack of child care, health care, and job training has upon people…FACT:The annual earnings
of a full-time, full-year worker making $6 an hour-well above the federal minimum wage ($5.15 per hour)—are
too low to lift a family of three above the federal poverty line.
“We find that one in six non-elderly Americans live in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty
line and in which all adults work, on average, at least 1,000 hours a year: these individuals comprise the
working poor. Almost two-thirds of the working poor live in families with children and at least two adults present. And, on average, the primary earner in a working poor family works full-time, year round.”—from PLAYING BY THE RULES BUT LOSING THE GAME America’s Working Poor
…or maybe the rich are rich because it is a sign of their elect and favored status in the eyes of god
I have stood in food lines. You know, where you get free bags of food? Most of the people in those lines [welfare, etc] were not fat. Although there was one lady who came every week all dressed up driving a mercedes…I never figured that one out.
Yeah, I always thought that about my mom when she was pulling double-shifts as a housekeeper. Or when she worked two jobs, as a housekeeper, and a taxi-driver, only a few short months after giving birth to my youngest sister.
And my dad! It was just amazing how lazy he was. I mean, working shift work (Especially graveyards), burning dirt, is anybody’s ideal job.
Don’t even get me started on how lazy my grandparents are…
:rolleyes:
basically, not all goes to fat (and ignoring fiber) but most does and the oils (of one form or another) can actually allow the digestion process to slow down so more carbs are burnt.
What does our bodies do w/ complex carbs - breaks down them into simple sugars in the mouth and stomach (chew a cracker long enough and it will turn sweet as the starch is converted into sugar). In the stomach the simple sugar (glocose) is absorbed very rapidly. You BGL (blood glucose level) shoots way up. Your body pumps insulin to counter this. There are 3 ways to lower your BGL 1:burn (unlikely after a big carb meal) 2: convert to glycogen (but most people’s glycogen levels are already at max so 2 is not an option) 3: convert it to fat (here’s where colesterol and triglicerides shoot up). As your BGL normalizes, insulin is still present in the blood forcing your BGL to crash. You they feel hungry again (and tired).
I would agree with potato chips to some degree and bread, but bologna has almost no carbs and if other carbs are also low, I can’t see it leading to increased weight in and of itself.
Pastas, breads, sugar, and other refined carbs have very little micro nutritional value as most ‘good’ stuff have been stripped away. You are left with a substance, though tasty, will actually take stored nutrients to digest.
Saying that all poor people or all fat people are lazy is untrue on its face. Such absolutes are bound to be untrue.
However, people who lack self discipline and do not defer gratification will most likely be unsuccessful in maintaining a workout/diet program and will probably not be getting advanced degrees or climbing the latter.
But staying “thin” as defined by the hollywood types takes not only dedication, but time and money. Mac and cheese is cheaper and easier than making a low fat lasagna.
My first thought was “they can afford the cigarettes and amphetamines that poor people can’t.”
But, I think the OP is flawed. I don’t think that poor people are fatter. There’s more than enough fat rich people. Look at the Senate. There’s probably a subset of rich white women - the “ladies who lunch” - who are as a rule thinner than their Midwestern counterparts, but I don’t think the men would follow that same trend, and I don’t think that can be applied across the board.
There was a short article in the New York Times Style section that was devoted to this subset and a woman who wrote a book about them, aptly titled, “The Skinny”. One woman told of her food for the day, which was “oatmeal for breakfast and a sinus pill for lunch.” Not terribly healthy, really.
I think that overweight people tend to be less informed about nutrition. Perhaps that could be tied to education in general, and from there to higher income? But are there any actual facts, aside from the anecdotal party in the OP, that the poor are fatter? I still question that.
Oh give me a break. Burn me on the generalization. I admitted to it. But at least read the words I posted.
“Poor fat people tend to be lazy.”
I’ll take out the poor part, because it is an unfair generalization. But I’d point out the OP did it first.
vix, was your grandfather fat? Were your parents? I’m guessing no, based SOLELY on the fact that the sound to be incredibly active trying to make ends meet.
writefetus, reaganyouth? Hardly. Read my post again, please. And working full-time? 40 hours is considered full time. Talk to a lawyer or a doctor about working 100 hours a week. THAT’S full time.
And to another person who failed to read the whole post (okay, maybe I didn’t think it completely out, but neither did y’all completely read my post) pepperlandgirl, you just wrote about how busy and active your parents were. Are they fat people? I doubt it.
That was the jist of my post. Rich people tend to be busy and active. Being busy and active tend to lead to not being fat. Busy, active = not fat. I did NOT say “busy, active = poor” in ANY way. Nor did I say “busy, active = rich”.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. But some of you (writefetus) need to take admitted generalizations a bit easier.
Rich people are thin because the poor of this country have low nutritional value. We’ve had a bad crop for the last few years, and everybody’s suffering.
…sorry pardner,but I have re-read yr. post and I stick by MY post… your first line is, for the most part, what I was reacting to, it reads " Poor people tend to be lazy. "
that is,any way you slice it, a bigoted and ignorant statement,I may back off somewhat on my beligerant tone, but not the substance of my post.
regards,
write’
Okay, just a thought…
I live on an Indian reservation which is one of the poorest areas of the US, according to the feds. Almost everybody here, including myself, gets by on commodities–food provided by the government to make sure nobody starves. Our rez is the size of CT and yet there is only one major grocery store…and it’s so expensive that you can’t afford to buy a whole lot there, especially fresh fruits and vegetables (if they even have them.) What you get in commodities is what can be canned and kept for months…canned vegetables, powdered eggs and milk, everything loaded with preservatives. The majority of people here have diabetes, and at least half of them, I’d say, are obese. If you can’t eat a high fiber diet (which is really one of the only ways you can really feel full) because it’s too expensive, you have to make do by eating tons of cheap craps in cans. And that stuff is so flavorless that you have to augment it with a candy bar. That’s why frybread, loaded with calories and fat, is so popular on the rez…it’s got flavor and you can make it from commodities. Just a thought…maybe it’s the lack of filling and flavor in those foods that indirectly makes us fat…
I was going by my handy calorie chart which says that the total number of calories in a plate of spaghetti with tomato sauce is 396 whereas a bologna sandwich on white bread (not counting mayo) is 597. Regardless of where the carbs are, more calories means more fattening. As for that last part about taking more nutrients to digest than you get from eating it - maybe I’m dense but I don’t get that at all.
Sorry for the interruption, back to your regular channel…
Yeah actually, my dad was very overweight. Then, he was put on Phen-Fen, and after that was banned, he was put on another combination. He lost 100 pounds. It has nothing to do with being poor, or lazy, or anything else. He had abnormally low Seratonin (SP?) levels.
pepperlandgirl, c’mon! Read my first post. I take back my comment that writefetus objects to. It was a blatant generalization and was ignorant. But I SPECIFICALLY mention any sort of handicap or thyroid problem. I don’t know what Phen-Fen is, or what low Seratonin levels are caused by, but I certainly in no way could have been referring to them in that post.
