6 ms·

Healthy food is substantially more expensive than junk food in the US, esp. at the amount required to get full. No wonder the poor generally eats less well tha

Healthy food is substantially more expensive than junk food in the US, esp. at the amount required to get full. No wonder the poor generally eats less well than the well-off. If the government subsidizes veggies and less sweet fruits, more consumption is likely esp among the poor and lower-middle class (even though habit change could take time). The savings in the healthcare system and social safety nets could more than pay back the full amount spent on these subsidies. As a bonus: de-subsidize agricultural products used to produce non-complex carbs, soda, and sweets, e.g. corn and wheat. Subsidies contribute to cheaper prices, excessive consumption, and worse health. To do that directly might be politically difficult, taxing the end products more could be a plausible compromise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Healthy food is more expensive per calorie. If you are overeating (i.e., if you can pinch more than an inch) you can reduce calories and increase quality without spending anything extra. Most poor folks can pinch far more than an inch. Living healthy is neither difficult nor expensive. Last night I made a stew of tomatoes, collard greens and beans: total cost maybe $5-6 for 2-3 meals. In a short while I'm walking to a public park for a workout - unlike poor people I can afford to use the pullup bar ($0), the parallel bars ($0), the basketball court ($0) and a jump rope ($7). (Google ATUS stats on TV watching before claiming poor folks don't have time to do the same thing.) The problem is willingness, not ability. Some people just don't like vegetables or pushups and don't find the health gains worthwhile. If you want to improve their health, you need to coerce them into changing their lifestyle. That said, I'm all in favor of reducing agricultural subsidies. I just don't think it's going to have a significant effect on health.
- nopinsight 11y ago
  I'd say that energy, rather than time, could be a limiting factor when you're poor. Working minimum wage jobs is often repetitive, soul-crushing, and/or physically demanding. By the time you leave work, you might want to buy finished products (e.g. fast food) instead of spending time shopping for and cooking healthy food. Middle-class jobs more often feel meaningful or at least allow for more self-determination during tasks which might be helpful for replenishing lost energy. I agree though that habits and familiarity with the diet one grows up with contribute a greal deal. Many poorer parents may not be able to break their own habits, esp when economic incentives push them otherwise. Kids imitate the way their parents eat. That is why some nudging, through economic incentives, PR, or other means, is necessary to break the inter-generational vicious cycle.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    If the job is physically demanding, you should be getting plenty of exercise. When I was tearing down houses, I definitely didn't need an additional workout [1]. Cook a healthy meal - not particularly physically taxing - and you should be good! Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are working. Most are not, and very few of the remainder work full time. I think part of the problem might be our modern culture of victimhood; it's become socially acceptable to make excuses for being fat, weak, unhealthy and lazy, so why bother trying to change it? [1] I'd amend this a bit; I didn't need an additional workout to maintain a base level of fitness. Specific goals - quad/ham separation, 6 pack, surviving 5 rounds in the ring - do of course require additional training.
    - czep 11y ago
      > Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are working. Most poor are working. Not sure what your point was, but don't try to pull the "their poor because they're lazy" argument.
      - Artistry121 11y ago
        Reposting of another comment on this thread. YF never mentioned the reasons they didn't work - just that the fact they were working cannot be linked to their health. ~%40 of the poor work and ~%28 work full time according to the below article. > Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are working. Most are not, and very few of the remainder work full time. Would you mind supporting this factual claim with evidence? Here's the most detailed examination of this I could quickly find http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-majority-o.. http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-majority-o.... * 35.2 percent of the poor (18 - 64) are NOT ELIGIBLE to work (retired, going to school, or disabled) * 64.8 percent of working-age poor ARE CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE to work * 62.6 percent of eligible workers are working * 44.3 percent of eligible workers are working full-time * 37.4 percent of working age poor eligible for employment are not working (this includes 3.3 million unemployed poor people currently seeking a employment)
    - 11y ago
nopinsight 11y ago
It is possible to test my proposal above and potentially improve the situation in the article. Try introducing subsidy for healthy food and taxes for unhealthy stuff in a few diverse geographical areas. Track eating habits and health indicators (triglycerides, LDLs, blood pressure, etc.) of the population samples for 3-10 years or longer if warranted, compared with those in comparable areas which serve as control groups. With statistical techniques, we may even be able to estimate the cost savings in healthcare systems and DALY improvement from the policy. DALY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Healthy food is more expensive per calorie. If you are overeating (i.e., if you can pinch more than an inch) you can reduce calories and increase quality without spending anything extra. Most poor folks can pinch far more than an inch. Living healthy is neither difficult nor expensive. Last night I made a stew of tomatoes, collard greens and beans: total cost maybe $5-6 for 2-3 meals. In a short while I'm walking to a public park for a workout - unlike poor people I can afford to use the pullup bar ($0), the parallel bars ($0), the basketball court ($0) and a jump rope ($7). (Google ATUS stats on TV watching before claiming poor folks don't have time to do the same thing.) The problem is willingness, not ability. Some people just don't like vegetables or pushups and don't find the health gains worthwhile. If you want to improve their health, you need to coerce them into changing their lifestyle. That said, I'm all in favor of reducing agricultural subsidies. I just don't think it's going to have a significant effect on health.

nopinsight 11y ago
I'd say that energy, rather than time, could be a limiting factor when you're poor. Working minimum wage jobs is often repetitive, soul-crushing, and/or physically demanding. By the time you leave work, you might want to buy finished products (e.g. fast food) instead of spending time shopping for and cooking healthy food. Middle-class jobs more often feel meaningful or at least allow for more self-determination during tasks which might be helpful for replenishing lost energy. I agree though that habits and familiarity with the diet one grows up with contribute a greal deal. Many poorer parents may not be able to break their own habits, esp when economic incentives push them otherwise. Kids imitate the way their parents eat. That is why some nudging, through economic incentives, PR, or other means, is necessary to break the inter-generational vicious cycle.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  If the job is physically demanding, you should be getting plenty of exercise. When I was tearing down houses, I definitely didn't need an additional workout [1]. Cook a healthy meal - not particularly physically taxing - and you should be good! Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are working. Most are not, and very few of the remainder work full time. I think part of the problem might be our modern culture of victimhood; it's become socially acceptable to make excuses for being fat, weak, unhealthy and lazy, so why bother trying to change it? [1] I'd amend this a bit; I didn't need an additional workout to maintain a base level of fitness. Specific goals - quad/ham separation, 6 pack, surviving 5 rounds in the ring - do of course require additional training.
  - czep 11y ago
    > Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are working. Most poor are working. Not sure what your point was, but don't try to pull the "their poor because they're lazy" argument.
    - Artistry121 11y ago
      Reposting of another comment on this thread. YF never mentioned the reasons they didn't work - just that the fact they were working cannot be linked to their health. ~%40 of the poor work and ~%28 work full time according to the below article. > Of course, this theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that poor folks are working. Most are not, and very few of the remainder work full time. Would you mind supporting this factual claim with evidence? Here's the most detailed examination of this I could quickly find http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-majority-o.. http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-majority-o.... * 35.2 percent of the poor (18 - 64) are NOT ELIGIBLE to work (retired, going to school, or disabled) * 64.8 percent of working-age poor ARE CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE to work * 62.6 percent of eligible workers are working * 44.3 percent of eligible workers are working full-time * 37.4 percent of working age poor eligible for employment are not working (this includes 3.3 million unemployed poor people currently seeking a employment)
  - 11y ago

nopinsight 11y ago

It is possible to test my proposal above and potentially improve the situation in the article. Try introducing subsidy for healthy food and taxes for unhealthy stuff in a few diverse geographical areas. Track eating habits and health indicators (triglycerides, LDLs, blood pressure, etc.) of the population samples for 3-10 years or longer if warranted, compared with those in comparable areas which serve as control groups. With statistical techniques, we may even be able to estimate the cost savings in healthcare systems and DALY improvement from the policy. DALY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year