|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 13 2016 04:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:22 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:
Obesity is related to shitty food being cheap, while healthy food costs more. I am sure some of that food tastes different. There's no difference between the food found at Walmart and that at any other average supermarket. This is completely inaccurate. The vegetables at my local Roch brothers are might higher quality, fresher, but cost more. Same with the Star Market. Same with a lot of the meat. You have to be naive to think that Walmart is offering cheaper food of the same quality based on pure buying power. They are not magic. Double blind study and get back to me. Humans believe quality changes with price rather than price changes with quality. We're dumb that way. If you don't charge very much for something then the brain will think it's bad before you even start. If you charge much more than the brain will think it'll be good. Instead of going "this is really good, it should be expensive" we go "this is really expensive, it should be good". There are business models that exist only because of this phenomenon.
Why am I doing a double blind test on wilted, bruised, watery or bad vegies? My Walmart doesn't have a butcher or meat department in it either. Its all pre-froven or packed meat. Are you telling me that meat that was pre-cut and shipped for 800+ miles better than fresh cut meat from a butcher?
|
On February 13 2016 04:23 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:10 KwarK wrote:
And how long ago was it that you remember chicken tasting differently? The tasty chicken train has departed before I was born. There was time people ate chicken without adding herbs, spices, or frying them. And it wasn't that people didn't have access to more flavoring tools back then. It's also not just that junk food is cheap. Obesity (extreme obesity, and overweight people) is a problem through all incomes. Junk food are straight up tastier while alternatives are bland.
People used to be content with less. And used more fat/salt in their cooking than many homecooks do today. Have you read a cooking book from the 1950s? If it didn't have 200g of butter in there it wasn't fit for human consumption. People were also in general poorer and thus couldn't afford as many condiments/as much meat.
Seriously, take your argument and apply it to technology: Why are you using a computer instead of a typewriter?! The typewriter didn't need electricity, didn't need software, and spelled just as well as the computer. Just like electronics have developed, so has the culinary world.
|
United States43973 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:27 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:22 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:
Obesity is related to shitty food being cheap, while healthy food costs more. I am sure some of that food tastes different. There's no difference between the food found at Walmart and that at any other average supermarket. This is completely inaccurate. The vegetables at my local Roch brothers are might higher quality, fresher, but cost more. Same with the Star Market. Same with a lot of the meat. You have to be naive to think that Walmart is offering cheaper food of the same quality based on pure buying power. They are not magic. Double blind study and get back to me. Humans believe quality changes with price rather than price changes with quality. We're dumb that way. If you don't charge very much for something then the brain will think it's bad before you even start. If you charge much more than the brain will think it'll be good. Instead of going "this is really good, it should be expensive" we go "this is really expensive, it should be good". There are business models that exist only because of this phenomenon. Why am I doing a double blind test on wilted, bruised, watery or bad vegies? My Walmart doesn't have a butcher or meat department in it either. Its all pre-froven or packed meat. Are you telling me that meat that was pre-cut and shipped for 800+ miles better than fresh cut meat from a butcher?
Because right now your argument is about as valuable as a religious guy telling me that God told him to. The reason you should try twenty or so identical meals made with components from Walmart/Roch brothers and see if you can identify all 10 of the Walmart meals is so you can actually have something worth saying. I believe that you'll happily sit there paying more for food and going "mmmmm farm to table", I just don't believe you wouldn't still do that if I substituted in some Walmart ingredients and told you they were homegrown.
Right now you're basically going "if Jesus isn't real then who died for our sins". Ante up or shut up.
|
On February 13 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:
"I strictly control my spending and diet"
Don't you think there are people with various life issues that'd make this more difficult, say working two jobs while raising kids? I work two jobs and go to school for my Master's at the same time. It's why I regulate my life so much. More shit going on necessitates more control, not less.
The point is that you live a life in which you are able to exert a certain amount of control over your daily routine to the extent that said routine incorporates what is "necessary." Others, including those with large debts, numerous dependents, or a lack of a particular resource, may not be able to regulate their lives in such an efficient manner. That's where the personal responsibility argument as to healthy eating/weight management starts to fall apart.
|
United States43973 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:35 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:
"I strictly control my spending and diet"
Don't you think there are people with various life issues that'd make this more difficult, say working two jobs while raising kids? I work two jobs and go to school for my Master's at the same time. It's why I regulate my life so much. More shit going on necessitates more control, not less. The point is that you live a life in which you are able to exert a certain amount of control over your daily routine to the extent that said routine incorporates what is "necessary." Others, including those with large debts, numerous dependents, or a lack of a particular resource, may not be able to regulate their lives in such an efficient manner. That's where the personal responsibility argument as to healthy eating/weight management starts to fall apart.
I have McDonald's as part of a healthy diet where I am actually losing weight pretty easily and eating on a tight budget. The menu has meals on it and somewhere along the line single burgers have disappeared such that the smallest meal on the menu is now a 2xcheeseburger meal and they've introduced double quarter pounders. But you know what, if you ask them to make you a cheeseburger by itself they'll do that. It's bullshit. You can argue they don't have ovens or fridges or pantries but you can't argue that they're too poor to get the cheapest thing to the menu and therefore have to eat to excess and make themselves unhealthy. Nobody anywhere is buying that narrative.
|
Quality at most places isn't going to vary much, and price is going to have a weak correlation to quality.
|
On February 13 2016 04:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2016 04:27 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:22 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:
Obesity is related to shitty food being cheap, while healthy food costs more. I am sure some of that food tastes different. There's no difference between the food found at Walmart and that at any other average supermarket. This is completely inaccurate. The vegetables at my local Roch brothers are might higher quality, fresher, but cost more. Same with the Star Market. Same with a lot of the meat. You have to be naive to think that Walmart is offering cheaper food of the same quality based on pure buying power. They are not magic. Double blind study and get back to me. Humans believe quality changes with price rather than price changes with quality. We're dumb that way. If you don't charge very much for something then the brain will think it's bad before you even start. If you charge much more than the brain will think it'll be good. Instead of going "this is really good, it should be expensive" we go "this is really expensive, it should be good". There are business models that exist only because of this phenomenon. Why am I doing a double blind test on wilted, bruised, watery or bad vegies? My Walmart doesn't have a butcher or meat department in it either. Its all pre-froven or packed meat. Are you telling me that meat that was pre-cut and shipped for 800+ miles better than fresh cut meat from a butcher? Because right now your argument is about as valuable as a religious guy telling me that God told him to. The reason you should try twenty or so identical meals made with components from Walmart/Roch brothers and see if you can identify all 10 of the Walmart meals is so you can actually have something worth saying. I believe that you'll happily sit there paying more for food and going "mmmmm farm to table", I just don't believe you wouldn't still do that if I substituted in some Walmart ingredients. Right now you're basically going "if Jesus isn't real then who died for our sins". Ante up or shut up.
Kwark, have you considered the idea that your experience and my experience with Walmart are different? That mine has low grade, shit produce and yours doesn't? Its a big store, I am sure that I could create 1 or 2 good meals from it. But in what crazy world do you live in where all stores carry the same quality products, set wildly different prices nation wide?
On February 13 2016 04:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
Quality at most places isn't going to vary much, and price is going to have a weak correlation to quality.
I marinate and sous vide all my food. Doesn't matter if my chicken tenderloins came frozen from Costco, Whole Foods, the Publix across the street or the global/farmer's market. All tastes about the same.
Quality mostly based on the shipping, care and how old it is. Most of the Walmarts around us have bad food sections, whatever the cause. We are better off going to whole foods or Trader Joes.
But that has little to do with processed, pre-packaged food being more garbage the cheaper they are.
|
United States43973 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:35 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2016 04:27 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:22 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:
Obesity is related to shitty food being cheap, while healthy food costs more. I am sure some of that food tastes different. There's no difference between the food found at Walmart and that at any other average supermarket. This is completely inaccurate. The vegetables at my local Roch brothers are might higher quality, fresher, but cost more. Same with the Star Market. Same with a lot of the meat. You have to be naive to think that Walmart is offering cheaper food of the same quality based on pure buying power. They are not magic. Double blind study and get back to me. Humans believe quality changes with price rather than price changes with quality. We're dumb that way. If you don't charge very much for something then the brain will think it's bad before you even start. If you charge much more than the brain will think it'll be good. Instead of going "this is really good, it should be expensive" we go "this is really expensive, it should be good". There are business models that exist only because of this phenomenon. Why am I doing a double blind test on wilted, bruised, watery or bad vegies? My Walmart doesn't have a butcher or meat department in it either. Its all pre-froven or packed meat. Are you telling me that meat that was pre-cut and shipped for 800+ miles better than fresh cut meat from a butcher? Because right now your argument is about as valuable as a religious guy telling me that God told him to. The reason you should try twenty or so identical meals made with components from Walmart/Roch brothers and see if you can identify all 10 of the Walmart meals is so you can actually have something worth saying. I believe that you'll happily sit there paying more for food and going "mmmmm farm to table", I just don't believe you wouldn't still do that if I substituted in some Walmart ingredients. Right now you're basically going "if Jesus isn't real then who died for our sins". Ante up or shut up. Kwark, have you considered the idea that your experience and my experience with Walmart are different? That mine has low grade, shit produce and yours doesn't? Its a big story, I am sure that I could create 1 or 2 good meals from it. But in what crazy world do you live in where all stores carry the same quality products, set wildly different prices?
Define "shit produce". If you're talking about less aesthetically pleasing vegetables or something then you are part of the problem. Inconceivable amounts of perfectly good food gets thrown away because it's not pretty enough for the consumer and the food that is sold is graded on appearance and sold to different suppliers for different prices. It's entirely possible you could find fruit from the same branch at hugely different prices in different stores.
An onion is an onion, a banana is a banana. What's more likely, that your anecdotal evidence which you refuse to test is the answer or that your perception of quality is influenced by your knowledge of the price and supplier?
Again, humans are really bad at judging quality without taking into account preconceived judgments. You are not the single objective exception to that rule. As a human you need to be aware of your limitations and accept that "I find it tastes better" is meaningless without a double blind trial.
|
On February 13 2016 04:35 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:
"I strictly control my spending and diet"
Don't you think there are people with various life issues that'd make this more difficult, say working two jobs while raising kids? I work two jobs and go to school for my Master's at the same time. It's why I regulate my life so much. More shit going on necessitates more control, not less. The point is that you live a life in which you are able to exert a certain amount of control over your daily routine to the extent that said routine incorporates what is "necessary." Others, including those with large debts, numerous dependents, or a lack of a particular resource, may not be able to regulate their lives in such an efficient manner. That's where the personal responsibility argument as to healthy eating/weight management starts to fall apart.
I think there is also the fact that he is saying "if I can do it anyone can" which is a pretty tenuous argument imo. It ignores things like individual personality or upbringing which are large factors on how much effort it takes to do that disciplined for some people when they didn't grow up with it. People form habits as they get older and if they were not in an environment conducive to developing those habits it becomes increasingly hard to add them later in life and most poor people don't have the will (or knowledge) to put those into effect. Not everyone has the intellectual capacity, solid childhood background, or savy life planning capabilities that he had/has.
If you are on the higher end of the human distribution for intelligence for example, you should really consider that you are in the minority when considering the entire population and that you can do things a lot of others simply cannot, even if it seems obvious or easy for you.
|
On February 13 2016 04:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Having tasted meat at Walmart and meat that was bought at the farmers market there is no debate that it taste worse at Walmart. But what Plansix said is true subsidize healthy food instead of shitty food and or just plain stop subsidizing big agriculture.
What meat? Chicken wings, lamb chops, pork tenderloin, turkey breast, ground chuck, bacon, buffalo burgers, ground sirloin...? I would like to see a large blind study here. And then I still wouldn't see the relevance. If your personal preference for some food is Store A over Store B, that's natural, but I don't think obesity is being caused by the onions at Walmart not being 10% tastier which forces everyone to eat a cake every day instead.
On February 13 2016 04:23 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:10 KwarK wrote:
And how long ago was it that you remember chicken tasting differently? The tasty chicken train has departed before I was born. There was time people ate chicken without adding herbs, spices, or frying them. And it wasn't that people didn't have access to more flavoring tools back then. It's also not just that junk food is cheap. Obesity (extreme obesity, and overweight people) is a problem through all incomes. Junk food are straight up tastier while alternatives are bland.
There was a time that when people ate a bird, they displayed the whole animal before everyone feasted on it. How would chickens have evolved in 50 years to taste so much worse, and why would we breed them in that direction?
On February 13 2016 04:28 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:
Obesity is related to shitty food being cheap, while healthy food costs more. I am sure some of that food tastes different. There's no difference between the food found at Walmart and that at any other average supermarket. True healthy food is not found in supermarkets though, but at your local butcher/baker/vegetable vendor/etc. If that's even a thing in the US.
You can't buy a $1 loaf of Italian bread at Walmart because it's not truly healthy?
On February 13 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:27 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:22 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:
Obesity is related to shitty food being cheap, while healthy food costs more. I am sure some of that food tastes different. There's no difference between the food found at Walmart and that at any other average supermarket. This is completely inaccurate. The vegetables at my local Roch brothers are might higher quality, fresher, but cost more. Same with the Star Market. Same with a lot of the meat. You have to be naive to think that Walmart is offering cheaper food of the same quality based on pure buying power. They are not magic. Double blind study and get back to me. Humans believe quality changes with price rather than price changes with quality. We're dumb that way. If you don't charge very much for something then the brain will think it's bad before you even start. If you charge much more than the brain will think it'll be good. Instead of going "this is really good, it should be expensive" we go "this is really expensive, it should be good". There are business models that exist only because of this phenomenon. Why am I doing a double blind test on wilted, bruised, watery or bad vegies? My Walmart doesn't have a butcher or meat department in it either. Its all pre-froven or packed meat. Are you telling me that meat that was pre-cut and shipped for 800+ miles better than fresh cut meat from a butcher?
Your Walmart may be an example of anomalous shittiness. But you need a blind test to find out if your cucumber palate is as refined as you think it is.
|
On February 13 2016 04:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:35 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:
"I strictly control my spending and diet"
Don't you think there are people with various life issues that'd make this more difficult, say working two jobs while raising kids? I work two jobs and go to school for my Master's at the same time. It's why I regulate my life so much. More shit going on necessitates more control, not less. The point is that you live a life in which you are able to exert a certain amount of control over your daily routine to the extent that said routine incorporates what is "necessary." Others, including those with large debts, numerous dependents, or a lack of a particular resource, may not be able to regulate their lives in such an efficient manner. That's where the personal responsibility argument as to healthy eating/weight management starts to fall apart. I have McDonald's as part of a healthy diet where I am actually losing weight pretty easily and eating on a tight budget. The menu has meals on it and somewhere along the line single burgers have disappeared such that the smallest meal on the menu is now a 2xcheeseburger meal and they've introduced double quarter pounders. But you know what, if you ask them to make you a cheeseburger by itself they'll do that. It's bullshit. You can argue they don't have ovens or fridges or pantries but you can't argue that they're too poor to get the cheapest thing to the menu and therefore have to eat to excess and make themselves unhealthy. Nobody anywhere is buying that narrative.
The argument is not that anyone is too poor to buy the cheapest thing on the menu; the argument is that poverty oftentimes brings with it other marked disadvantages that can play into problems like obesity. I'm totally with you in regards to incorporating shit food like McDonald's into a healthy diet; I myself have done very much the same thing, but I did so alongside a pretty careful look at everything I was eating relative to my energy output. Poor people may never have even learned how to eat a balanced diet, nor might they be working jobs that allow for any kind of real energy output. Add in the demands of children or a lengthy commute or any other number of things and I really don't think it's hard to see how low income folks are that much more predisposed towards obesity.
|
The $1 loaf of Italian bread at Walmart made from what? Dough with what in it? You can make bread out of a lot of garbage and it still tastes good. We bake bread all the time and you can make it from many things, including beer. Beer bread is good bread, tbh.
|
On February 13 2016 04:52 Plansix wrote:
The $1 loaf of Italian bread at Walmart made from what? Dough with what in it? You can make bread out of a lot of garbage and it still tastes good. We bake bread all the time and you can make it from many things, including beer. Beer bread is good bread, tbh.
From flour, yeast, and water.
|
United States43973 Posts
If your food budget is in the region of $20/week then things like Walmart or fast food are amazingly useful. To give that some perspective, that's about a third of what food stamps will give you. The idea that people cannot afford to eat healthily is absurd. On $20/week you can't afford to eat unhealthy at McDonald's, after two large meals you've spent your entire budget. But you could easily grab a cheeseburger every work day and have a healthy amount of calories with a hot lunch that will fit neatly into a busy and chaotic routine. Likewise Walmart produce will get you a decent breakfast (I'm very partial to milk, oats and chopped fruit) and good home cooked meals.
Attacking the crutches that people who are struggling for food money rely on in the name of helping them is insanity. Being poor and eating fast food is not making anyone obese, poor people can't afford enough fast food to become obese. Having too much money for food and buying more than you need is how you become obese. And people who eat more food than they need to can be found in Whole Foods as easily as they're found elsewhere.
|
United States43973 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:39 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:35 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:
"I strictly control my spending and diet"
Don't you think there are people with various life issues that'd make this more difficult, say working two jobs while raising kids? I work two jobs and go to school for my Master's at the same time. It's why I regulate my life so much. More shit going on necessitates more control, not less. The point is that you live a life in which you are able to exert a certain amount of control over your daily routine to the extent that said routine incorporates what is "necessary." Others, including those with large debts, numerous dependents, or a lack of a particular resource, may not be able to regulate their lives in such an efficient manner. That's where the personal responsibility argument as to healthy eating/weight management starts to fall apart. I have McDonald's as part of a healthy diet where I am actually losing weight pretty easily and eating on a tight budget. The menu has meals on it and somewhere along the line single burgers have disappeared such that the smallest meal on the menu is now a 2xcheeseburger meal and they've introduced double quarter pounders. But you know what, if you ask them to make you a cheeseburger by itself they'll do that. It's bullshit. You can argue they don't have ovens or fridges or pantries but you can't argue that they're too poor to get the cheapest thing to the menu and therefore have to eat to excess and make themselves unhealthy. Nobody anywhere is buying that narrative. The argument is not that anyone is too poor to buy the cheapest thing on the menu; the argument is that poverty oftentimes brings with it other marked disadvantages that can play into problems like obesity. I'm totally with you in regards to incorporating shit food like McDonald's into a healthy diet; I myself have done very much the same thing, but I did so alongside a pretty careful look at everything I was eating relative to my energy output. Poor people may never have even learned how to eat a balanced diet, nor might they be working jobs that allow for any kind of real energy output. Add in the demands of children or a lengthy commute or any other number of things and I really don't think it's hard to see how low income folks are that much more predisposed towards obesity.
Which means that the problem is unrelated to McDonald's or Walmart, both of which are valuable tools providing an essential service to hungry poor people. Which was my point. That there is no such thing as being too poor to eat healthily. There is correlation but not causation. People who routinely make bad decisions in every area of their life make bad decisions in other areas of their life.
|
That is going to be some shitty bread. You might want to add salt, sugar and oil of some form. Do you know if teh Walmart mixed the dough from raw ingredients in the store, or do they ship the dough nation wide and bake it on site? That is what our super market does and I don't buy a lot of their bread because it has high fructose corn syrup, not sugar.
And guys: there are numerous studies on this subject and many are ongoing. Cheap, energy dense, sugar filled food is the a contribute to obesity in the US. And our obsession with carbs/bread.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879182/
|
On February 13 2016 04:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:39 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:35 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:
"I strictly control my spending and diet"
Don't you think there are people with various life issues that'd make this more difficult, say working two jobs while raising kids? I work two jobs and go to school for my Master's at the same time. It's why I regulate my life so much. More shit going on necessitates more control, not less. The point is that you live a life in which you are able to exert a certain amount of control over your daily routine to the extent that said routine incorporates what is "necessary." Others, including those with large debts, numerous dependents, or a lack of a particular resource, may not be able to regulate their lives in such an efficient manner. That's where the personal responsibility argument as to healthy eating/weight management starts to fall apart. I have McDonald's as part of a healthy diet where I am actually losing weight pretty easily and eating on a tight budget. The menu has meals on it and somewhere along the line single burgers have disappeared such that the smallest meal on the menu is now a 2xcheeseburger meal and they've introduced double quarter pounders. But you know what, if you ask them to make you a cheeseburger by itself they'll do that. It's bullshit. You can argue they don't have ovens or fridges or pantries but you can't argue that they're too poor to get the cheapest thing to the menu and therefore have to eat to excess and make themselves unhealthy. Nobody anywhere is buying that narrative. The argument is not that anyone is too poor to buy the cheapest thing on the menu; the argument is that poverty oftentimes brings with it other marked disadvantages that can play into problems like obesity. I'm totally with you in regards to incorporating shit food like McDonald's into a healthy diet; I myself have done very much the same thing, but I did so alongside a pretty careful look at everything I was eating relative to my energy output. Poor people may never have even learned how to eat a balanced diet, nor might they be working jobs that allow for any kind of real energy output. Add in the demands of children or a lengthy commute or any other number of things and I really don't think it's hard to see how low income folks are that much more predisposed towards obesity.
Even in that very favorable scenario you painted, putting a cheap produce section on that person's street wouldn't solve the problem. Because they still go to MCdees and eat 1500 calorie dinners since they don't understand food.
|
health is a long term thing, and its hard to weigh the long term effects against short term decision/benefit between McD's and cooking yourself some chicken and veggies at home.
|
On February 13 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:
That is going to be some shitty bread. You might want to add salt, sugar and oil of some form. Do you know if teh Walmart mixed the dough from raw ingredients in the store, or do they ship the dough nation wide and bake it on site? That is what our super market does and I don't buy a lot of their bread because it has high fructose corn syrup, not sugar.
It's not surprising there's nothing I could have said that would have stopped you from trying to manufacture fault with bread of all things, which has been a staple for thousands of years, and is something we as a species have figured out pretty well how to make.
|
On February 13 2016 04:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:51 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2016 04:39 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:35 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:
"I strictly control my spending and diet"
Don't you think there are people with various life issues that'd make this more difficult, say working two jobs while raising kids? I work two jobs and go to school for my Master's at the same time. It's why I regulate my life so much. More shit going on necessitates more control, not less. The point is that you live a life in which you are able to exert a certain amount of control over your daily routine to the extent that said routine incorporates what is "necessary." Others, including those with large debts, numerous dependents, or a lack of a particular resource, may not be able to regulate their lives in such an efficient manner. That's where the personal responsibility argument as to healthy eating/weight management starts to fall apart. I have McDonald's as part of a healthy diet where I am actually losing weight pretty easily and eating on a tight budget. The menu has meals on it and somewhere along the line single burgers have disappeared such that the smallest meal on the menu is now a 2xcheeseburger meal and they've introduced double quarter pounders. But you know what, if you ask them to make you a cheeseburger by itself they'll do that. It's bullshit. You can argue they don't have ovens or fridges or pantries but you can't argue that they're too poor to get the cheapest thing to the menu and therefore have to eat to excess and make themselves unhealthy. Nobody anywhere is buying that narrative. The argument is not that anyone is too poor to buy the cheapest thing on the menu; the argument is that poverty oftentimes brings with it other marked disadvantages that can play into problems like obesity. I'm totally with you in regards to incorporating shit food like McDonald's into a healthy diet; I myself have done very much the same thing, but I did so alongside a pretty careful look at everything I was eating relative to my energy output. Poor people may never have even learned how to eat a balanced diet, nor might they be working jobs that allow for any kind of real energy output. Add in the demands of children or a lengthy commute or any other number of things and I really don't think it's hard to see how low income folks are that much more predisposed towards obesity. Which means that the problem is unrelated to McDonald's or Walmart, both of which are valuable tools providing an essential service to hungry poor people. Which was my point. That there is no such thing as being too poor to eat healthily. There is correlation but not causation.
I wouldn't say that the problem is unrelated to McDonalds or Walmart, though focusing on the quality of their products instead of their effects on labor and wages is probably the wrong way to go about things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
