11 ms·

Processed unhealthy foods are cheaper than processed healthy(er) foods. Beans and grains are cheap. Staple fruits and vegetables are cheap. Chicken is cheap (e

Processed unhealthy foods are cheaper than processed healthy(er) foods. Beans and grains are cheap. Staple fruits and vegetables are cheap. Chicken is cheap (especially dark meat). Eggs are cheap. You can feed a family of 4 a very healthy diet for ~$100 a month if you're willing to put in the work sourcing and cooking. That's the crux of the issue, though. Food deserts combined with a lack of nutritional and culinary knowledge - maybe a lack of time to prepare healthy meals - is what's killing the average American diet, middle class and below. Side note: if you raise your kids on hot dogs, chicken nuggets and soda every day then you will possibly ruin their palette for life. We now have people that find drinking water disgusting, because all they've ever drank is Diet Coke.

dakna 7y ago
Lack of knowledge is one prt, but also convenience plays a big role. Cooking is considered a household chore, and life should be easy. The neighborhood store doesn't offer raw ingredients to cook, and you need weekly planning to stock up on this when you drive to the big store outside of town. You get everything processed and sugared up right around the corner every day.
- wang_li 7y ago
  > convenience plays a big role No government regulation should be imposed on the country as a whole so that some people can find things more convenient. If people can't be bothered to put some effort into being healthy, I'm not sure why I should care if the "gap between rich and poor American's health is widening" or not. Edited to remove judgement.
  - standardUser 7y ago
    You may have missed other parts of this conversation where people point out how corporate interests have had great success in getting the government to promote and subsidize unhealthy foods (see: corn subsidies, the food pyramid, subpar food labelling, cheap junk food in public schools). The government (at various levels) should certainly have a role in ensuring a healthy population. But if nothing else, the government (at all levels) should be sure not to promote and fund profoundly unhealthy habits over healthy ones.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      > The government (at various levels) should certainly have a role in ensuring a healthy population. Lifestyle choices are not a function of government even if those choices result in shortened lifespans, poor health, poverty, or other "negative" outcomes. These are not externalities and are no business of society. You might say that sick people cost the society money. But the answer to that is not that people are sick, it's that someone has decided to spend money on those people. Of course this approach doesn't put more power into the hands of control freaks, so it'll constantly be fought. > But if nothing else, the government (at all levels) should be sure not to promote and fund profoundly unhealthy habits over healthy ones. Agreed. Government should not feed false information to the people.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      > The government (at various levels) should certainly have a role in ensuring a healthy population. this is an opinion. to the extent that the government publishes nutrition recommendations or information, it should of course be accurate, but I really don't want to see what the government actively "ensuring" my health looks like.
      - standardUser 7y ago
        Not allowing toxic chemicals in your food, for example, and establishing monitoring and penalties to accomplish that. Not allowing companies to lie about what's in the food they sell you, as another example.
  - kevinlou 7y ago
    Yeah this is the wrong take, buddy.
    - dang 7y ago
      Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
  - dakna 7y ago
    I'm not aware of any government regulation to enforce convenience. If given a choice, most people will choose instant convenience if they are not aware of the long term effects of this decision. Hence the lack of education part.
  - dang 7y ago
    When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
foxyv 7y ago
I have a few friends on the poverty line. They all live in houses and apartments without access to a working kitchen. Many rented rooms don't come with kitchen "privileges." In addition they work 60+ hours a week making time consuming food preparation less practical. The result is a lot of cheap pre-packaged food and fast food.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Exactly. I have loved ones who have lived without functioning kitchens, refrigerators, cars, home climate control, etc. Some folks work ludicrous hours per week at multiple jobs. Telling them to put in more effort in shopping, exercise, cooking, and dishes is missing the problem entirely.
- asark 7y ago
  Cheap, gross pizza is a thing, and you just have to pick it up. IIRC a Costco combination pizza will provide enough calories for a largish adult for two days, and is $10. No oven, no kitchen, no gadgets, no cooking required. It'll even probably still be fine to eat day two without refrigeration. Ditto all sorts of other dirt-cheap gross pizza joints, not just Costco. Math works out almost as good. Or cheap frozen pizza on clearance (talking like Totinos or store brand here, not even anything as fancy as Freschetta) if you got a freezer and an oven. It's also incredibly unhealthy if you ate it regularly, but hey. Cheap, tasty-enough calories hitting every "food group" from the good ol' pyramid. Though arguably not fruit, I guess. [EDIT] I'm always confused when folks talk about healthy, fresh food being a slam-dunk price win over bad food. I can only assume they are not familiar with what's actually out there, in the bad food universe, and are just looking at how expensive full-price Frosted Flakes are or whatever. I find it damn hard to compete with $5/day/person like that Costco pizza, without resorting to a bachelor's rice-n-beans-n-whichever-veggies-were-about-to-go-bad diet.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    Costco pizza is great, but poor people don't shop at stores that make you pay just to shop there. They don't buy in bulk because even when it would be cheaper in the long run they don't have the money for the investment or the space to store what isn't being used. Often they don't live in areas where a costco is even anywhere near them. Those in food deserts don't even get regular stores. When time is factored in (prep time, clean up and number of shopping trips required) bad food is unquestionably less expensive.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Tastes change with time. Speaking from personal experience, I'm not an extreme of the archetype you think of (always eating chicken nuggets and drinking Coke as a kid), but that was still a large portion of my diet. For some reason, bitter foods are far more palatable to me now, than they were then. Some people find certain green, leafy vegetables, to be bitter, for example. But I love it all now! If you eat enough salads, you kind of get used to eating salad. With enough time, I find myself craving them like I would have wanted McDonald's.
pnutjam 7y ago
What, you're too good for Brawndo?
johnsimer 7y ago
> Beans and grains are cheap. Side note: grains are not a healthy food.
- mrob 7y ago
  Considering how difficult it is to conduct reliable experiments in human nutrition, and the wide variety of conflicting results, this is a dubious claim. I'm fairly confident that traditional grain-based diets are better for you than a diet based on modern processed/junk foods. Grains do contain anti-nutrients, but it's uncertain if they're a serious health risk, and it's possible to reduce the levels with fermentation (e.g. sourdough).
- ch4s3 7y ago
  I hate to be that person, but the statement "grains are not a healthy food" is a pretty bold statement. I'm not sure that the best evidence available supports that claim.
- triceratops 7y ago
  Whole grains aren't unhealthy as part of a balanced diet. Bread or rice makes vegetables more palatable, adds some protein, carbs, fiber, and minerals. Carbs are vital if you're doing physical labor. Grains are more calorie dense than veggies, cheaper, and store longer, than veggies - all big pluses for low-income households.
  - mrob 7y ago
    >Carbs are vital if you're doing physical labor. Physical labor usually means long duration but low intensity exercise, which you can do just as well on a fat-based diet. Carbs only improve performance for short duration high intensity exercise (e.g. sprinting/weight lifting).
  - nightski 7y ago
    Carbs are vital? I've been living for 7 years on a sub-20g net carb diet. I'm relatively active and participate in several century bike rides throughout the year. I don't seem to be missing out? Actually, carbs are the only macro-nutrient your body can completely do without.
LUmBULtERA 7y ago
Yes! During a time when I lived off of about $10k/year in a HCOL (including renting a room in a shared house) I ate plentiful beans, rice, cheap vegetables and chicken. Lots of cheap and healthy options if one is interested.
hanniabu 7y ago
I grew up on a poor diet and eating various (not all) veggies seemed bland. It only took about 2-3 weeks of clean eating (no meat, minimal sugar/salt) to "reset" my palette to where everything natural started tasting delicious.
golemiprague 7y ago
You don't even need really healthy food and you don't need to cook, just don't eat too much and you already solved half of the problems if not more associated with over stuffing on calories. The problem is cultural and by the way, exists also in countries with universal healthcare. Rich people always get better health treatment and high IQ and future time orientation also helps. This is just another identity politics drivel applied to whatever subject, I just ignore it and when there are elections I vote for Trump or its equivalent in my country.

dakna 7y ago

Lack of knowledge is one prt, but also convenience plays a big role. Cooking is considered a household chore, and life should be easy. The neighborhood store doesn't offer raw ingredients to cook, and you need weekly planning to stock up on this when you drive to the big store outside of town. You get everything processed and sugared up right around the corner every day.

wang_li 7y ago
> convenience plays a big role No government regulation should be imposed on the country as a whole so that some people can find things more convenient. If people can't be bothered to put some effort into being healthy, I'm not sure why I should care if the "gap between rich and poor American's health is widening" or not. Edited to remove judgement.
- standardUser 7y ago
  You may have missed other parts of this conversation where people point out how corporate interests have had great success in getting the government to promote and subsidize unhealthy foods (see: corn subsidies, the food pyramid, subpar food labelling, cheap junk food in public schools). The government (at various levels) should certainly have a role in ensuring a healthy population. But if nothing else, the government (at all levels) should be sure not to promote and fund profoundly unhealthy habits over healthy ones.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    > The government (at various levels) should certainly have a role in ensuring a healthy population. Lifestyle choices are not a function of government even if those choices result in shortened lifespans, poor health, poverty, or other "negative" outcomes. These are not externalities and are no business of society. You might say that sick people cost the society money. But the answer to that is not that people are sick, it's that someone has decided to spend money on those people. Of course this approach doesn't put more power into the hands of control freaks, so it'll constantly be fought. > But if nothing else, the government (at all levels) should be sure not to promote and fund profoundly unhealthy habits over healthy ones. Agreed. Government should not feed false information to the people.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > The government (at various levels) should certainly have a role in ensuring a healthy population. this is an opinion. to the extent that the government publishes nutrition recommendations or information, it should of course be accurate, but I really don't want to see what the government actively "ensuring" my health looks like.
    - standardUser 7y ago
      Not allowing toxic chemicals in your food, for example, and establishing monitoring and penalties to accomplish that. Not allowing companies to lie about what's in the food they sell you, as another example.
- kevinlou 7y ago
  Yeah this is the wrong take, buddy.
  - dang 7y ago
    Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
- dakna 7y ago
  I'm not aware of any government regulation to enforce convenience. If given a choice, most people will choose instant convenience if they are not aware of the long term effects of this decision. Hence the lack of education part.
- dang 7y ago
  When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

foxyv 7y ago

I have a few friends on the poverty line. They all live in houses and apartments without access to a working kitchen. Many rented rooms don't come with kitchen "privileges." In addition they work 60+ hours a week making time consuming food preparation less practical. The result is a lot of cheap pre-packaged food and fast food.

humanrebar 7y ago
Exactly. I have loved ones who have lived without functioning kitchens, refrigerators, cars, home climate control, etc. Some folks work ludicrous hours per week at multiple jobs. Telling them to put in more effort in shopping, exercise, cooking, and dishes is missing the problem entirely.
asark 7y ago
Cheap, gross pizza is a thing, and you just have to pick it up. IIRC a Costco combination pizza will provide enough calories for a largish adult for two days, and is $10. No oven, no kitchen, no gadgets, no cooking required. It'll even probably still be fine to eat day two without refrigeration. Ditto all sorts of other dirt-cheap gross pizza joints, not just Costco. Math works out almost as good. Or cheap frozen pizza on clearance (talking like Totinos or store brand here, not even anything as fancy as Freschetta) if you got a freezer and an oven. It's also incredibly unhealthy if you ate it regularly, but hey. Cheap, tasty-enough calories hitting every "food group" from the good ol' pyramid. Though arguably not fruit, I guess. [EDIT] I'm always confused when folks talk about healthy, fresh food being a slam-dunk price win over bad food. I can only assume they are not familiar with what's actually out there, in the bad food universe, and are just looking at how expensive full-price Frosted Flakes are or whatever. I find it damn hard to compete with $5/day/person like that Costco pizza, without resorting to a bachelor's rice-n-beans-n-whichever-veggies-were-about-to-go-bad diet.
- autoexec 7y ago
  Costco pizza is great, but poor people don't shop at stores that make you pay just to shop there. They don't buy in bulk because even when it would be cheaper in the long run they don't have the money for the investment or the space to store what isn't being used. Often they don't live in areas where a costco is even anywhere near them. Those in food deserts don't even get regular stores. When time is factored in (prep time, clean up and number of shopping trips required) bad food is unquestionably less expensive.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

Tastes change with time. Speaking from personal experience, I'm not an extreme of the archetype you think of (always eating chicken nuggets and drinking Coke as a kid), but that was still a large portion of my diet. For some reason, bitter foods are far more palatable to me now, than they were then. Some people find certain green, leafy vegetables, to be bitter, for example. But I love it all now! If you eat enough salads, you kind of get used to eating salad. With enough time, I find myself craving them like I would have wanted McDonald's.

pnutjam 7y ago

What, you're too good for Brawndo?

johnsimer 7y ago

> Beans and grains are cheap. Side note: grains are not a healthy food.

mrob 7y ago
Considering how difficult it is to conduct reliable experiments in human nutrition, and the wide variety of conflicting results, this is a dubious claim. I'm fairly confident that traditional grain-based diets are better for you than a diet based on modern processed/junk foods. Grains do contain anti-nutrients, but it's uncertain if they're a serious health risk, and it's possible to reduce the levels with fermentation (e.g. sourdough).
ch4s3 7y ago
I hate to be that person, but the statement "grains are not a healthy food" is a pretty bold statement. I'm not sure that the best evidence available supports that claim.
triceratops 7y ago
Whole grains aren't unhealthy as part of a balanced diet. Bread or rice makes vegetables more palatable, adds some protein, carbs, fiber, and minerals. Carbs are vital if you're doing physical labor. Grains are more calorie dense than veggies, cheaper, and store longer, than veggies - all big pluses for low-income households.
- mrob 7y ago
  >Carbs are vital if you're doing physical labor. Physical labor usually means long duration but low intensity exercise, which you can do just as well on a fat-based diet. Carbs only improve performance for short duration high intensity exercise (e.g. sprinting/weight lifting).
- nightski 7y ago
  Carbs are vital? I've been living for 7 years on a sub-20g net carb diet. I'm relatively active and participate in several century bike rides throughout the year. I don't seem to be missing out? Actually, carbs are the only macro-nutrient your body can completely do without.

LUmBULtERA 7y ago

Yes! During a time when I lived off of about $10k/year in a HCOL (including renting a room in a shared house) I ate plentiful beans, rice, cheap vegetables and chicken. Lots of cheap and healthy options if one is interested.

hanniabu 7y ago

I grew up on a poor diet and eating various (not all) veggies seemed bland. It only took about 2-3 weeks of clean eating (no meat, minimal sugar/salt) to "reset" my palette to where everything natural started tasting delicious.

golemiprague 7y ago

You don't even need really healthy food and you don't need to cook, just don't eat too much and you already solved half of the problems if not more associated with over stuffing on calories. The problem is cultural and by the way, exists also in countries with universal healthcare. Rich people always get better health treatment and high IQ and future time orientation also helps. This is just another identity politics drivel applied to whatever subject, I just ignore it and when there are elections I vote for Trump or its equivalent in my country.