Ideas about poverty and obesity

[Laura Corin]

Press release here:

 

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2016/appetite/#d.en.436864

 

Paper here:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666316300277

[Guest]

I agree with the premise in the press release. I also think the "sugar tax" and similar attempted deterrants to eating poorly are a terrible idea and do not work. I also do not believe government should attempt to influence eating habits by taxing Twinkies but not avacadoes.

[ktgrok]

I agree with the premise in the press release. I also think the "sugar tax" and similar attempted deterrants to eating poorly are a terrible idea and do not work. I also do not believe government should attempt to influence eating habits by taxing Twinkies but not avacadoes.

 

Maybe not, but right now we actually subsidize sugar, and not vegetables. The government has already stepped in, just in the other direction. 

[Laura Corin]

The author does not separate poor from poverty.

Poverty includes ignorance...not knowing what to put on the plate in times of plenty to ensure adequate nutrition.

Poor...they know what a nutritious diet is, but cant obtain it.

 

 

I do agree that there are nuances to this.  For reference, the participants attend a reasonably prestigious university; of course that doesn't mean that they necessarily know a lot about nutrition, but I would guess that they wouldn't fit into your definition of poverty/ignorance.

[SKL]

I have long said that even when "healthy" choices are offered in poor neighborhoods etc., even if they are affordable, they are still not going to be preferred by many.  And I don't agree that it's because people don't know that an apple and a carrot make a healthier snack than a bag of potato chips.  I think it's a matter of choice, and if I say any more, I will get a bunch of PC backlash.

 

I myself choose less healthy options at certain times in life.  Right now is one of those times.  I am 100% aware of what I am doing.  It is a choice.

 

Comfort food, ease of getting the stuff from the shelf to my stomach, desire (not need) for a sugar rush.  The discipline it takes to develop better habits.  Procrastination.

[Daria]

One thing that I see as a teacher, and know from my experience as a parent, is that it's incredibly rewarding to be able to give your kid things that make him happy.  I know I get more excited than my kid about his Christmas presents.  As a middle class parent, I can give my kid lots of things that he likes, like a trip to a local playground, or an afterschool activity, or a new book, or a trip to the zoo and a stuffed animal at the end.  When I've worked with low income kids, I see parents with the same desire, and 50 cents in their pocket, and the bus to the playground costs $4.00 for your family round trip, it's got to be tempting to make them smile with that package of Hot Fries from the guy on the corner.  

[tm919]

I have long said that even when "healthy" choices are offered in poor neighborhoods etc., even if they are affordable, they are still not going to be preferred by many.  And I don't agree that it's because people don't know that an apple and a carrot make a healthier snack than a bag of potato chips.  I think it's a matter of choice, and if I say any more, I will get a bunch of PC backlash.

 

I myself choose less healthy options at certain times in life.  Right now is one of those times.  I am 100% aware of what I am doing.  It is a choice.

 

Comfort food, ease of getting the stuff from the shelf to my stomach, desire (not need) for a sugar rush.  The discipline it takes to develop better habits.  Procrastination.

I can sort of see this... I am much healthier when other things in my life are in order, like I don't have the mental space to care about whole grains when the rest of my life seems like it's in the toilet... a bit like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

 

I do think though that it's hard to eat healthy on not much money, and it's a developed taste. I've made a lot of the recipes from Good and Cheap, and while they are delicious, you have to get so much of your protein from eggs and that's hard for a lot of people to stomach.

 

 

[SKL]

I can sort of see this... I am much healthier when other things in my life are in order, like I don't have the mental space to care about whole grains when the rest of my life seems like it's in the toilet... a bit like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

 

I do think though that it's hard to eat healthy on not much money, and it's a developed taste. I've made a lot of the recipes from Good and Cheap, and while they are delicious, you have to get so much of your protein from eggs and that's hard for a lot of people to stomach.

 

 

When my life was in better order, I spent much less money on food *and* ate much healthier.  I ate more whole fruits and vegetables - in simple snack form - and less fatty, starchy "comfort food" type meals.  I was also more mindful about exercise.  Even only a few minutes here and there - my quick Yoga routine, walking the stairs at lunch time, quick morning calisthenics, whatever - makes a difference, and doesn't cost anything.

Edited March 28, 2016 by SKL

[Mergath]

I can sort of see this... I am much healthier when other things in my life are in order, like I don't have the mental space to care about whole grains when the rest of my life seems like it's in the toilet... a bit like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

 

I do think though that it's hard to eat healthy on not much money, and it's a developed taste. I've made a lot of the recipes from Good and Cheap, and while they are delicious, you have to get so much of your protein from eggs and that's hard for a lot of people to stomach.

 

 

It's more than that. Stress activates chemicals in the brain that make us crave fat and carbs. So people who live in poverty are dealing with not only the inability to afford or access healthy whole foods, but the constant stress means their bodies are physically urging them to eat junk food. That's a hard combo to overcome.

 

Especially when society keeps telling them that they eat junk because they're lazy and too stupid to know any better. :glare:  I might just give up and reach for the ice cream at that point, too.

[Amira]

Mexico passed a sugar tax about 2 years ago and it appears to be making a difference.  (Or here, if you can't access that one.)

[KungFuPanda]

I remember living in southern WV when cigarettes went up to two dollars a pack. A LOT of people quit. I think closing the gap between the price of real food and crap is a good idea. Moving the subsidies to nutritious veggies and taxing sugar could actually be a step in the right direction. The government is already IN the food chain. They might as well put the money/oversight where it does the most good.

[SKL]

My concern about taxing sugar would be that people might eat more artificial sweeteners, which are less healthy *and* less satisfying.

[Guest]

Maybe not, but right now we actually subsidize sugar, and not vegetables. The government has already stepped in, just in the other direction.

And I am not in favor of subsidizing sugar...or corn, or soy. That's not why I said what I said; I was talking about consumption taxes on sugary drinks or other similar, as mentioned in the article.

[TechWife]

The author does not separate poor from poverty.

Poverty includes ignorance...not knowing what to put on the plate in times of plenty to ensure adequate nutrition.

Poor...they know what a nutritious diet is, but cant obtain it.

 

 

I have never heard of defining either "poor" or "poverty" as it relates to income in this way before. One can have poor knowledge, but that doesn't meant they are poor in their income. The same is true with poverty. 

 

The article in question is addressing income, not knowledge base. 

 

In the US poverty is measured in a couple of different ways. The poverty threshold is determined using a combination of income, family size and ages of family members. It is issued by the US Census Department and is used for statistical purposes.   The poverty guidelines take into consideration family size and income and are issued by the Dept. of Health and Human Services in order to determine eligibility for various aid programs. Knowledge base is not taken into consideration in either measure. 

 

 

[Murphy101]

Poverty does not necessarily include ignorance.

 

Anymore than wealth necessarily includes much knowledge.

 

I think regardless of income, people eat what they are familiar with and crave and can afford in either time or money.

 

There's a reason we see fast food joints on every corner instead of produce stands and fresh markets and it's not because only poor or ignorant people go there.

 

Same is true for why there's often only two aisles a really healthy foods only person can shop at the grocery store whether it's on the rich side of town or the ghetto.

[Lady Florida.]

I don't disagree with the premise. As much as I admire Michele Obama, her fight against obesity is one area where I think she went wrong as First Lady. Her idea of getting people to eat more healthy food is admirable but it doesn't take all of those factors from the study into account.

[Murphy101]

I don't disagree with the premise. As much as I admire Michele Obama, her fight against obesity is one area where I think she went wrong as First Lady. Her idea of getting people to eat more healthy food is admirable but it doesn't take all of those factors from the study into account.

Yes. Stress eating is nothing new or surprising. And that poor people face more stress isn't news either.

[LucyStoner]

The author does not separate poor from poverty.

Poverty includes ignorance...not knowing what to put on the plate in times of plenty to ensure adequate nutrition.

Poor...they know what a nutritious diet is, but cant obtain it.

 

 

To be very clear that is a definition of your making or one someone else made and you are repeating.

 

Poverty does not literally mean anything else besides a level of resources which is grossly insufficient to support one's basic needs.

 

Adding value judgments to it is wholly unnecessary. Functional people capable of making good judgments (with or without an education) can be in poverty either by choice or circumstance or disability.

Edited March 29, 2016 by LucyStoner

[pinkmint]

I feel the first Lady's obesity crusade has had some misguided aspects to it as well. When I was on WIC we could not got whole milk as a direct result of her actions. No child ever became obese from drinking whole milk.

[TechWife]

I feel the first Lady's obesity crusade has had some misguided aspects to it as well. When I was on WIC we could not got whole milk as a direct result of her actions. No child ever became obese from drinking whole milk.

 

Likewise, some children, like mine, are directed by their doctors to drink whole milk because, within the context of the individual's diet, the calories and fat content are needed. 

[LucyStoner]

Likewise, some children, like mine, are directed by their doctors to drink whole milk because, within the context of the individual's diet, the calories and fat content are needed.

 

WIC will, IIRC, do whole milk for a child whose Doctor indicates they need it or the WIC nurse thinks they need it.

 

Also a longtime before Obama was elected they only offered whole milk for toddlers between the ages of 1 and 2. Might have been between 1 and 3 at some point. (one of my old jobs supplied other items to WIC families).

Edited March 29, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Daria]

I feel the first Lady's obesity crusade has had some misguided aspects to it as well. When I was on WIC we could not got whole milk as a direct result of her actions. No child ever became obese from drinking whole milk.

How is that the direct result of her actions?

 

My son was on WIC long before she was First Lady and they had ridiculous rules then too. He was on prescription formula, so we didn't deal with whole milk, but I know they were very restrictive otherwise.

[Laura Corin]

 

The paper though,is having people choose between crackers and chocolate. Cant take that seriously, especially since the crackers are likely to have an additive that increases desire to consume. 

 

For reference, these are the ingredients of British Ritz Crackers.  Not ideal nutrition but nothing too bizarre, I don't think:

 

Ingredients: Wheat flour, palm oil, sugar, raising agents (ammonium bicarbonate, monocalcium orthophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, potassium bicarbonate), glucose-fructose syrup, salt, barley malt flour, emulsifier (sunflower lecithin) 

[prairiewindmomma]

Here's the US Ritz ingredient list: Ingredients: UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE {VITAMIN B1}, RIBOFLAVIN {VITAMIN B2}, FOLIC ACID), WHOLE GRAIN WHEAT FLOUR, SOYBEAN OIL, SUGAR, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL, LEAVENING (CALCIUM PHOSPHATE AND/OR BAKING SODA), SALT, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, SOY LECITHIN.CONTAINS WHEAT, SOY.

 

[LucyStoner]

Ftr, I am not making a value judgement. It is what it is, life.

 

Your definition of poverty - a level of resources grossly insufficient to support basic needs - is one that was used in the Depression Era in the US.the definition has changed, to be more one of relative poverty. The needs are met, but the child and family cant participate in the activities of daily society that most others can. Some definitions, such as thr EU's have 9 different factors spelled out.

 

The paper though,is having people choose between crackers and chocolate. Cant take that seriously, especially since the crackers are likely to have an additive that increases desire to consume. Put out grapes and chicken , organic, and I will listen.

Neither the federal government or the dictionary use your definition.

 

Where, pray tell, is your definition coming from? It's not coming from "life". It's either your concoction or something you heard or read and are repeating as fact.

 

In a sense you could say someone is impoverished in something besides money but living "in poverty" or at "the poverty line" absolutely do not equate with one's mental faculties or other capacity to make the best choices for one's own life. 

 

If it is not a value judgement to say that those in poverty don't know how to manage their own lives or imply that they make universally poor choices, then I don't know the definition of value judgement.

 

ETA:  Additionally, your definition is not one that I came across:

 

-As a child raised in poverty.

-As a college student studying poverty as an econ student.

-As a professional grant-writer researching, drafting, editing and securing a large number of grants for organizations that alleviate poverty (services, job programs for the otherwise unemployable, advocacy and lobbying).

 

So absent a source for your redefinition, I'm sticking with the generally accepted usage and meaning of the word poverty.  

Edited March 29, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Lady Florida.]

Neither the federal government or the dictionary use your definition.

 

Where, pray tell, is your definition coming from? It's not coming from "life". It's either your concoction or something you heard or read and are repeating as fact.

 

 

 

 

It's not coming from the World Bank or WHO or the United Nations either. There are two types of poverty: absolute and relative. While the definitions are broad in some cases, and governments of different countries define poverty differently, I could find no countries or world organizations that included ignorance as part of the definition.

 

And Ritz crackers are cheap, and carbs fill you up.

 

 

Everything tastes great when it sits on a Ritz. Mmmm. Goooood Cracker. Sorry, couldn't resist. And you probably have to be a certain age plus from the U.S. (or possibly Canada) to get it.

 

[LucyStoner]

 

 

Everything tastes great when it sits on a Ritz. Mmmm. Goooood Cracker. Sorry, couldn't resist. And you probably have to be a certain age plus from the U.S. (or possibly Canada) to get it.

 

 

LOL for the video.  

[LucyStoner]

You can define poverty and poor any way you want. The author of the paper defines one term, not the other.i personally like the ruby k bridges definition.

 

I grew up with the definition that poverty is a state of mind, while poor is a state of the pocketbook. In otherwords, in poverty, one always feels one doesnt have enough, even when one does have the income to do more than survive. I know middle class people who think they are in poverty because they cant do what the jet set does...in a sense they are right because they dont have the social capital or the brainpower/knowledge to get to the point where they could generate that kind of wealth.yes, they are in relative poverty, but that doesnt mean they are lacking in their ability to thrive if they used what they have available and develop their talents instead of focussing on what another has done.

 

Oh good!  I'll start telling the kids in my spelling club to define the words however they want.   I'll see how the judges like that in the vocabulary rounds.   :p

Edited March 29, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Murphy101]

I don't think better off financially people necessarily make better food choices.

 

I think what they do is eat mostly the same as everyone else, but they can afford to do other things to mitigate the damage.

 

They can afford medications that suppress appetite, "flush" fats out of the system, surgeries to nip and tuck and suck away evidence, gym memberships and personal trainers and dietitians and counseling for stress and nannies to watch the kids or take personal time off without fear of job loss while they do all of that.

 

I've been fortunate to actually come into contact with a lot of people outside of my personal socioeconomic sphere and I don't see them eating all that much different than anyone else. What I do see them doing is having better access to ways to mitigate the appearance of damage aka fat. And they openly talk about doing so.

 

Personally I think the entire premise that fat is a poor ignorant people issue is BS. It's just another way to make poor people out to be too stupid or lazy to care for themselves and therefore deserving of derision and disdain and not deserving of genuine help.

[Murphy101]

I don't think we need to tax unhealthy foods.

 

If we just remove the crazy insane amount of govt subsidies they are getting, that alone would drive the price higher.

[SKL]

FTR I know lots of smart, well-off, happy people who are fat!  :)

[Zinnia]

In the last 5 years, we have been in a church that tends to be in a little higher socioeconomic place than we are used to.  We don't stick out (I like to think), but it's definitely not the people that we grew up with.  My dh and I both grew up middle class, but maybe bumping the bottom a bit.  No one we knew was that far removed from having a bad month and getting a notice about the electricity.  It might not happen to us regularly, but it was always there in teh back of your mind.  But we still felt middle class.

The new church is also middle class, but bumps up into upper middle class a little more.  It's not unusual for kids to go to prep-style private schools.  Ski vacations.  Beach vacations that don't involve an effeciency.  :)

 

The more upper middle class people are a lot more vocal and judgey about being overweight (we both are, and we've been in several situations where they talked about it in front of us).  I never even thought of this as a thing, honestly, but now I realize that there are a fair amount of people out there that see fat people as stupid.  It still has me reeling, just accepting that some people feel like that.  It has really shaken me and what I thought I knew about people.  That sounds so dramatic, but I just never imagined that people thought fat=stupid until hanging around these folks. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Zinnia

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I feel the first Lady's obesity crusade has had some misguided aspects to it as well. When I was on WIC we could not got whole milk as a direct result of her actions. No child ever became obese from drinking whole milk.

 

The WIC site lists whole milk as being WIC eligible.

 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods

 

I am curious as to what "actions" you think she took that prevented WIC from providing your whole milk? 

Edited March 30, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[LucyStoner]

The WIC site lists whole milk as being WIC eligible.

 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods

 

I am curious as to what "actions" you think she took that prevented WIC from providing your whole milk?

It's varied a bit but last I checked they only make out WIC checks for whole milk for a limited number of people who need it. It's not an option for everyone though it is a covered item. There are many WIC approved items but a recipient may only buy the items on her checks and those vary. Not all items that are on the federal WIC items list are available to all recipients.

 

For instance, tuna is an approved item but only for lactating mothers (again, last I checked.) Lactaid milk is approved if you report a lactose intolerance. Soy is approved, but only if you have a dairy allergy. It varies. The list of items on the check is very specific and varies based on the child's or mother's needs. It will say "2% milk right on the check. Or it might say "Soy milk" on the check.

Edited March 30, 2016 by LucyStoner

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's varied a bit but last I checked they only make out WIC checks for whole milk for a limited number of people who need it. It's not an option for everyone though it is a covered item. There are many WIC approved items but a recipient may only buy the items on her checks and those vary. For instance, tuna is an approved item but only for lactating mothers (again, last I checked.) Lactaid milk is approved if you report a lactose intolerance. It vaires.

 

Correct, but wasn't that always the case?  I never used WIC but I recall as a cashier back in the early 90s that the vouchers listed what could be purchased and they were quite detailed.

[LucyStoner]

Correct, but wasn't that always the case? I never used WIC but I recall as a cashier back in the early 90s that the vouchers listed what could be purchased and they were quite detailed.

Yes, that was always the case, but whole milk is specifically not an option for many recipients now and that has been restricted at some point in the last decade. I'm not clear on the details but I've heard the complaints from more than a few people in the past who were on it when it changed (neighbors, people from work, friends).

 

ETA: I found this online about a 2014 change from 2% to 1% or skim for kids over 2.

 

It appears that whole milk is still (or was as of 2014) an option for kids from 1-2. As far as I know, adult women have been restricted to skim or 1% for longer than that.

Edited March 30, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Mergath]

It's varied a bit but last I checked they only make out WIC checks for whole milk for a limited number of people who need it. It's not an option for everyone though it is a covered item. There are many WIC approved items but a recipient may only buy the items on her checks and those vary. Not all items that are on the federal WIC items list are available to all recipients.

 

For instance, tuna is an approved item but only for lactating mothers (again, last I checked.) Lactaid milk is approved if you report a lactose intolerance. Soy is approved, but only if you have a dairy allergy. It varies. The list of items on the check is very specific and varies based on the child's or mother's needs. It will say "2% milk right on the check. Or it might say "Soy milk" on the check.

 

:iagree:  We were on WIC when dd was little. She was so underweight her doctor diagnosed her with failure to thrive, and WIC still wouldn't let us get anything besides skim or 1%. Apparently they were worried she might get heavy enough to make it back into positive numbers on the growth chart again.  :001_rolleyes:

[LucyStoner]

:iagree: We were on WIC when dd was little. She was so underweight her doctor diagnosed her with failure to thrive, and WIC still wouldn't let us get anything besides skim or 1%. Apparently they were worried she might get heavy enough to make it back into positive numbers on the growth chart again. :001_rolleyes:

That sucks. Here I think the WIC workers do allow whole milk "by prescription". But that may have changed. The program has at least some changes every couple of years.

[kiwik]

When we are stressed we want to eat and drink fat and sugar (except for those who stop eating).  When you are constantly worried about money you are constantly stressed.  I spoke to someone the other day who fed herself and her children tinned spagetti and cheap white bread for weeks at a time.  If you were doing that and had a dollar to spare I can see buying fizzy drink rather than 2 small apples as you would feel the need for a treat.

 

My wealthier friends do eat just as much but usually better quality but they can also afford child care so they can go to the gym and to pay gym fees and personal trainers. They also have better medical care even in NZ which has a more subsidised system than NZ and warmer healthier housing.  When they need a night out they go to a nice restaurant -  poor people have to settle for the cheapest pizza in front of the TV.  There are many families where the eating habits have become so entrenched over several generations they don't know there is a different way.

 

NZ keeps waffling about a sugar tax but it seems to me removing GST from fresh fruit, vegetables, milk and meat would be a better option.  Cigarettes are now about $16 a packet (give or take a few dollars) and people still smoke so putting a bottle of fizzy up 20 c is probably not going to do much, especially since it is still about 1/2 the price of milk.

Edited March 30, 2016 by kiwik

[Joyofsixreboot]

In my years working for the government in a food program, I saw many people who felt food was an affordable way to " treat" themselves and their children. A bag of chips or pop then becomes associated with love, care, specialness, etc. Of course, I think all this is multi-factorial. Cost, availability, food ways and habits and psychological attachment probably all play into it.

[Joyofsixreboot]

:iagree: We were on WIC when dd was little. She was so underweight her doctor diagnosed her with failure to thrive, and WIC still wouldn't let us get anything besides skim or 1%. Apparently they were worried she might get heavy enough to make it back into positive numbers on the growth chart again. :001_rolleyes:

This really depends on your state. We allowed all milks except lactose free which required an Rx.

Edited to add -yep, whole milk still available here. So much depends on the state rules

https://secure.in.gov/isdh/files/IndianaWICProgramBooklet2016-ENG.pdf

Edited March 30, 2016 by joyofsix

[pinkmint]

Regarding my WIC comment it's what the lady at the WIC office told me. They lowered the age of children who could qualify for whole milk to be listed on their WIC checks because of changes on a federal level to deal with obesity (I had a 2 year old at the time and they could only receive an allowance for low fat milk).

 

I always try to give my kids whole milk despite if they are "too old" to need it. It's a healthy fat IMO and more filling. None of my kids are even close to overweight.

 

ETA: Looks like it varies from state to state though. That's just my experience with the state we lived in at the time.

Edited March 30, 2016 by pinkmint

[LucyStoner]

In my years working for the government in a food program, I saw many people who felt food was an affordable way to " treat" themselves and their children. A bag of chips or pop then becomes associated with love, care, specialness, etc. Of course, I think all this is multi-factorial. Cost, availability, food ways and habits and psychological attachment probably all play into it.

Absolutely.

 

It's about attainable goals. Food for many families in poverty often (not always) becomes their event, their celebration, their vacation. Upper class people can afford entertainment, travel, birthday parties that are activity centered rather than food centered and costly event tickets etc. But when you have days where you are eating toast with margarine as your main daily intake, the day you can eat what you want or make a special dinner becomes a huge family and entertainment event. And one of the only luxuries you get. The way you show love and affection, the way you bond and the way you apologize. Meals may be bleak but mom has enough pocket change for a slurpee or a donut and that makes the day seem like a good one.

 

There are a lot of instances of that in my own family for sure. When we had a bit of extra money it always went to "the good food".

Edited March 31, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

As far as the actual OP study, this is no surprise to me.  I don't live in poverty, but there have been times when my food budget was cut to the bone for a few weeks because of some emergency expense.  Even without thinking too much about it my grocery cart looked a lot less healthy, because my tendency was to choose the most calorie rich foods.  It might be nicer to eat healthily for those two weeks until the next paycheck, but not at the expense of not being able to fill people's bellies.  And when you are unsure whether you will make it through you are going to play it safe.

[Scarlett]

Regarding my WIC comment it's what the lady at the WIC office told me. They lowered the age of children who could qualify for whole milk to be listed on their WIC checks because of changes on a federal level to deal with obesity (I had a 2 year old at the time and they could only receive an allowance for low fat milk).

 

I always try to give my kids whole milk despite if they are "too old" to need it. It's a healthy fat IMO and more filling. None of my kids are even close to overweight.

 

ETA: Looks like it varies from state to state though. That's just my experience with the state we lived in at the time.

 

 

I have long felt it ridiculous to suggest kids need low fat milk.  I have two boys.  One is overweight and one is not.  When they are both here I buy 2% and whole milk and they drink what is best for them.  When dss is not here I only buy whole milk.  

[LucyStoner]

As far as the actual OP study, this is no surprise to me. I don't live in poverty, but there have been times when my food budget was cut to the bone for a few weeks because of some emergency expense. Even without thinking too much about it my grocery cart looked a lot less healthy, because my tendency was to choose the most calorie rich foods. It might be nicer to eat healthily for those two weeks until the next paycheck, but not at the expense of not being able to fill people's bellies. And when you are unsure whether you will make it through you are going to play it safe.

Calorie for calorie, money stretches further on carbs, processed sugar and fat. An apple will not fill your belly for dinner. A cheap frozen pizza will.

[Scarlett]

Calorie for calorie, money stretches further on carbs, processed sugar and fat. An apple will not fill your belly for dinner. A cheap frozen pizza will.

 

 

This reminds me of the girl/young woman I saw in a grocery store.  Not Wal-Mart where I shop for my family but the fancy grocery store where I shop for my boss.  She had an I-Phone and she was using the calculator at the same time she was counting out change.  Eventually she picked up and weighed 2 apples and bagged them and left.  I was dying to know her story.  Is that all the money she had and she was choosing an apple?  Or like me did she never have cash on her and didn't want to use her debit card to purchase 2 apples?  Sigh.  I will never know.  

 

And yes I buy those 1.34 frozen pizzas for my 16 year old for a quick 'bad' snack.  

[Lady Florida.]

Calorie for calorie, money stretches further on carbs, processed sugar and fat. An apple will not fill your belly for dinner. A cheap frozen pizza will.

 

Yep. A lot of the pasta my mother fed us growing up was the result of being Italian American. But it was also because pasta is cheap and it fills you up. She could make pasta fagioli (fazool) and fill us up with a smaller amount than a healthier dish.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Lady Florida

[Scarlett]

Yep. A lot of the pasta my mother fed us growing up was the result of being Italian American. But it was also because pasta fills you up. She could make pasta fagioli (fazool) and fill us up with a smaller amount than a healthier dish.

 

 

In our house it was fried potatoes, cornbread, pinto beans.  :)  Yum.  I make that meal occasionally. 

[pinkmint]

I eat what I tell myself is a "ghetto low carb" (lol) diet. There's a lot of cheap bunless hot dogs involved. But still it costs more than a bread, pasta and dollar chicken pot pie filled diet that would better match my "socioeconomic status". It allows me to maintain a normal weight.

 

It's something I have a little sense of guilt about since I'm wasting our precious dollars to eat like this but it's one of the ways that I feel I have some control when having to face doors closed in life because of lack of money.