I no longer wonder about the focus on childhood obesity

[BoberFett]

I don't totally disagree. but when you can get a bag of chips for $3 and a watermelon cost $6 that is part of the problem.

And caviar costs more than watermelon. What's your point?

Pick a fruit that's local and in season. During apple season, you can buy a 5lb bag of apples for $3.

 

[BoberFett]

Healthy food per cal is more expensive, this is really a solved debate.

It is not like healthy food is particularly expensive though, but it is if is is low on the priority list and this that is used as an excuse. Grapes have never been nor ever will be cheaper than corn chips.

Correct. Per calorie, it's more expensive.

Fatties need to consume less calories.

So they end up spending the same.

 

[pmv]

Diet is certainly a consideration, but I believe activity levels are really the defining factor for obesity rates. You can get away with a pretty crappy diet if you are active.

Well, I'm in a different country (UK) but we aren't far behind, and what I most notice is how, whereas in my childhood it was normal to walk to school and back, now every school has rows of cars (usually illegally parked on the keep-clear at all times markings) outside at start and end of school days.

Apparently all children have now forgotten how to use their legs and have to be ferried to school and back in enormous tank-like vehicles (which have to be so huge because the precious cargo has to be protected against the threat posed by all the other enormous tank-like vehicles which are ferrying other people's kids to school, who can't possibly walk because all the enormous tank-like vehicles on the roads make walking too dangerous).

Personally, while I'm sure both are involved, I suspect so much more attention is paid to 'bad food' than to 'people driving everywhere' because bad food is eaten disproportionately by poor people, whereas driving (at least in this country) is correlated with wealth - the richer you are the more you drive. Ergo to point the finger at lack of exercise would implicate the well-off. Much easier to attack something poor people do (munch burgers).

 

[pmv]

Oh, and I find it strange that the same politicians who talk about taxing sugary foods (granted we probably all consume far too much sugar) also provide huge subsidies for sugar growers. This is true in both the US and Europe.

 

[pmv]

I get tired of hearing this lie. Healthy food is not expensive. Do you honestly believe that the price of raw fruits and vegetables is more than those same fruits and vegetables after processing into french fries and other unhealthy crap?

Healthy food requires preparation. It takes time. The problem is laziness, not cost.

I think you are mistaken (mostly). Some chefs here recently tested it, tried to compete with a ready meal by making the same thing from fresh ingredients. Their version came out more expensive (though it was a lot nicer).

Cheap ingredients, ruthlessly sourced and processed _on an efficient industrial scale_ can end up cheaper than raw ingredients purchased by an individual without much market power and cooked and prepared on a small inefficient scale. Of course the end result in the first case can be quite nasty (e.g. horsemeat pretending to be beef!).

Also there is a trade off between taste, cost, preparation time, and healthiness. Its pretty-much impossible to win on all 4 at once. You are doing well if you can get 3 out of 4. And many poor people don't _have_ much time (or energy), because they are working multiple jobs or doing a very long commute.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Diet is certainly a consideration, but I believe activity levels are really the defining factor for obesity rates. You can get away with a pretty crappy diet if you are active.

This is the biggest myth in the diet industry, that exercise is somehow a major factor in weight. Exercise is nice and it burns calories at an accelerated rate, and overall it speeds metabolism, BUT you can not get fat if you don't eat, and you can get as fat as a whale and exercise 24/7. Clearly the only relevant factor in weight is intake.

The quality of the food is also nearly irrelevant. Calories are calories (well actually Calories are kilocalories, and calories are calories).

 

[shortylickens]

You dont even need to eat "Health" food. Theres plenty of fruits and vegetables right when you walk in every grocery store. The problem is people zoom right past that for the junk aisle.

 

[BoberFett]

I think you are mistaken (mostly). Some chefs here recently tested it, tried to compete with a ready meal by making the same thing from fresh ingredients. Their version came out more expensive (though it was a lot nicer).

Cheap ingredients, ruthlessly sourced and processed _on an efficient industrial scale_ can end up cheaper than raw ingredients purchased by an individual without much market power and cooked and prepared on a small inefficient scale. Of course the end result in the first case can be quite nasty (e.g. horsemeat pretending to be beef!).

Also there is a trade off between taste, cost, preparation time, and healthiness. Its pretty-much impossible to win on all 4 at once. You are doing well if you can get 3 out of 4. And many poor people don't _have_ much time (or energy), because they are working multiple jobs or doing a very long commute.

For the love of all that is holy, please stop the stupidity.

Yes, if a chef prepares the same thing using fresher, higher quality ingredients while also maintaining the same level of taste, of course it will be more expensive. Quality ingredients and spices are expensive, whereas adding corn syrup to make something taste "good" is cheap. The point is that people need to expect to change their diet, not eat a healthier version of the same thing. Yes, McDonald's makes a cheap hamburger and fries. Making a burger at home and frying a freshly cut potato in high quality oil will costs more than $0.99. Here's a thought. Don't eat a fucking hamburger and fries. Eat an apple instead.

I'm going to have to go to the grocery store and take pictures of things for some of you. Christ on crutches, no wonder America is fat. You all believe the lies. "Waaaah, it's too expensive to eat healthy."

Edit: Also, thanks to health insurance/Medicare and shared risk piled on top of American stupidity, nobody has to feel the pain of their bad decisions. You can save money on food, but you'll be paying for it later. Diabetes? Not my problem, someone else will pay for my lifelong medical treatment! Now give me another piece of cake!

 

[BoberFett]

You dont even need to eat "Health" food. Theres plenty of fruits and vegetables right when you walk in every grocery store. The problem is people zoom right past that for the junk aisle.

Thank you.

 

[BeeBoop]

I've never in my life heard that humans used to eat only once a day. Do you have any sources for this? It sounds incredibly unhealthy. Every reputable fitness pro that I've ever spoken to has said that eating MORE meals in a day is a smart move because it increases your metabolism and is just overall healthier.

Source Here


And we talked about the source in Health and Fitness section here.

 

[mchammer187]

For the love of all that is holy, please stop the stupidity.

Yes, if a chef prepares the same thing using fresher, higher quality ingredients while also maintaining the same level of taste, of course it will be more expensive. Quality ingredients and spices are expensive, whereas adding corn syrup to make something taste "good" is cheap. The point is that people need to expect to change their diet, not eat a healthier version of the same thing. Yes, McDonald's makes a cheap hamburger and fries. Making a burger at home and frying a freshly cut potato in high quality oil will costs more than $0.99. Here's a thought. Don't eat a fucking hamburger and fries. Eat an apple instead.

I'm going to have to go to the grocery store and take pictures of things for some of you. Christ on crutches, no wonder America is fat. You all believe the lies. "Waaaah, it's too expensive to eat healthy."

It's not too expensive it is more expensive though. I'm talking bottom of the barrel processed food like swanson frozen stuff that is $1-2 per 1lb meal cheap. You won't find cheaper than that unless you eat like 95% rice which would also be bad for you though arguably not as bad.

I certainly don't eat that crap. If your baseline is fast food than you can certainly eat very healthy and very well for way less than fast food cost. When you compare it to ramen, processed canned and frozen food though nothing is going to be cheaper than that.

Obviously once you factor in the extra cost of obesity than it costs more but that is a different point.

 

[TheVrolok]

Well no shit, that's the point. Processed foods aren't cheaper, they're more calorie dense. The point is you're supposed to consume fewer calories, fatty.

You can go to the vending machine and pay $1 for a candy bar. Lots of calories.

Or you can go to the grocery store and buy a head of lettuce. No calories.

They cost the same. Fatties just love their sugar.

You asserted that healthier (fresher) food is not more expensive than processed food. You were (are) wrong. It is more expensive, AND it's more expensive per calorie. There's no point in comparing a candy bar to a head of lettuce, we're talking about a diet, not just random pieces of food. The price per calorie is extremely important.

 

[TheVrolok]

This is the biggest myth in the diet industry, that exercise is somehow a major factor in weight. Exercise is nice and it burns calories at an accelerated rate, and overall it speeds metabolism, BUT you can not get fat if you don't eat, and you can get as fat as a whale and exercise 24/7. Clearly the only relevant factor in weight is intake.

The quality of the food is also nearly irrelevant. Calories are calories (well actually Calories are kilocalories, and calories are calories).

This is all very important. Diet plays a far larger roll in weight loss (or maintenance) than exercise. Your second point is also correct, calories are calories (as far as weight goes) - now if we're talking about health risk there is entire separate discussion to be had.

 

[mchammer187]

You asserted that healthier (fresher) food is not more expensive than processed food. You were (are) wrong. It is more expensive, AND it's more expensive per calorie. There's no point in comparing a candy bar to a head of lettuce, we're talking about a diet, not just random pieces of food. The price per calorie is extremely important.

I think price per calorie is a bad metric. Price per meal or price per pound ready to eat pound of food is a much better metric and crap food wins on this front as well.

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm going to have to go to the grocery store and take pictures of things for some of you. Christ on crutches, no wonder America is fat. You all believe the lies. "Waaaah, it's too expensive to eat healthy."

I don't think anyone is saying it's too expensive to eat healthy, it certainly isn't - what we are saying (opposing your original statement) is that it is MORE expensive to eat healthily (per calorie).

 

[ch33zw1z]

1. genetics
2. diet
3. exercise

not necessarily in that order. from what I see, kids just don't play outside like we did. (i'm 32)

 

[SphinxnihpS]

For the love of all that is holy, please stop the stupidity.

Yes, if a chef prepares the same thing using fresher, higher quality ingredients while also maintaining the same level of taste, of course it will be more expensive. Quality ingredients and spices are expensive, whereas adding corn syrup to make something taste "good" is cheap. The point is that people need to expect to change their diet, not eat a healthier version of the same thing. Yes, McDonald's makes a cheap hamburger and fries. Making a burger at home and frying a freshly cut potato in high quality oil will costs more than $0.99. Here's a thought. Don't eat a fucking hamburger and fries. Eat an apple instead.

I'm going to have to go to the grocery store and take pictures of things for some of you. Christ on crutches, no wonder America is fat. You all believe the lies. "Waaaah, it's too expensive to eat healthy."

Edit: Also, thanks to health insurance/Medicare and shared risk piled on top of American stupidity, nobody has to feel the pain of their bad decisions. You can save money on food, but you'll be paying for it later. Diabetes? Not my problem, someone else will pay for my lifelong medical treatment! Now give me another piece of cake!

Eating healthier is also nice, but the fact of the matter is that simply eating less is probably 1000% healthier. The problems caused by salt sugar and chemicals are miniscule compared to the problems caused by being a whale in human skin.

 

[TheVrolok]

I think price per calorie is a bad metric. Price per meal or price per pound ready to eat pound of food is a much better metric and crap food wins on this front as well.

Price per calorie is really the only appropriate metric to use because that's what matters when we're talking about weight - caloric intake. Meal is extremely subjective, and by weight is difficult, too, because caloric density is extremely variable.

 

[waggy]

I don't think anyone is saying it's too expensive to eat healthy, it certainly isn't - what we are saying (opposing your original statement) is that it is MORE expensive to eat healthily (per calorie).

/this

 

[SphinxnihpS]

This is all very important. Diet plays a far larger roll in weight loss (or maintenance) than exercise. Your second point is also correct, calories are calories (as far as weight goes) - now if we're talking about health risk there is entire separate discussion to be had.

I understand that, but still, the biggest health risk from food is obesity, not diabetes (sugars), and not high blood pressure(salts); heart attacks and strokes due to being fat.

 

[TheVrolok]

I understand that, but still, the biggest health risk from food is obesity, not diabetes (sugars), and not high blood pressure(salts); heart attacks and strokes due to being fat.

I'm not entirely sure you are correct here, I would need to see the data. It is true that "obesity" itself is a risk factor for hypertension/coronary artery disease/atherosclerosis/etc. but I believe that to be the case because obesity is also confounding by hyperlipidemia/hyperglycemia/etc. insofar as they become indistinguishable and you essentially have "fatty syndrome" (i.e. obese people with hypertension/diabetes/hyperlipidemia). That said, there are quite a few people who are obese (even morbidly so) who have no (other) medical problems. Perhaps they are the outliers? I can't say for sure.

 

[mchammer187]

Price per calorie is really the only appropriate metric to use because that's what matters when we're talking about weight - caloric intake. Meal is extremely subjective, and by weight is difficult, too, because caloric density is extremely variable.

Density is dumb because you can eat an entire days worth of calories in a meals worth of candy bars.

Calorie wise it is sufficient but tell what is going to keep you full 5 candy bars or 15 lbs of broccoli. The brocolli will feed you for days the candy will last you 1 if you are going by food quantity.

One of the GOOD things about healthy food is it is less calorie dense that it keeps you full with less calories.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

1. genetics
2. diet
3. exercise

not necessarily in that order. from what I see, kids just don't play outside like we did. (i'm 32)

That doesn't take into account of the importance of those factors.

1. Caloric intake
2. Caloric intake
3. Caloric intake
4. Caloric intake
5. Caloric intake
.
.
.
90. Genetics
91. Exercise

Both genetics and lack of exercise can be completely defeated by intake.

I think I will start a diet farm where I place people in a coma and tube feed them until they are skinny. I think most people would rather lose a month or two of their lives than attempt to change any of their habits.

 

[BeeBoop]

Price per calorie is really the only appropriate metric to use because that's what matters when we're talking about weight - caloric intake. Meal is extremely subjective, and by weight is difficult, too, because caloric density is extremely variable.

Good point but what happens when you factor in medical bills? I guess no one likes to think that far and would rather instant gratification.

 

[TheVrolok]

Density is dumb because you can eat an entire days worth of calories in a meals worth of candy bars.

Calorie wise it is sufficient but tell what is going to keep you full 5 candy bars or 15 lbs of broccoli. The brocolli will feed you for days the candy will last you 1 if you are going by food quantity.

One of the GOOD things about healthy food is it is less calorie dense that it keeps you full with less calories.

I think we agree completely here.