3 ms·

There's what I call the "cheap shoes fallacy" at play here. When you buy cheap shoes, they break quickly, forcing you to buy another pair, ultimately costing m

There's what I call the "cheap shoes fallacy" at play here. When you buy cheap shoes, they break quickly, forcing you to buy another pair, ultimately costing more over time than if you had just bought good shoes to begin with. The same applies to food. When you buy cheap food, it will nourish you only a little bit, forcing you to buy more of it, ultimately costing more over time than if you had just bought good food to begin with. Cheap, industrial food contains the minimum amount of actual food to pass for grub, and is laden with artificial flavorings to fool your brain into thinking you're actually eating something, when you're not.

cortesoft 6y ago
I don’t think the data backs that up. The percentage of obese people would indicate that food not having enough calories is not the issue.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  You don't judge the quality of food by the amount of calories in it.
giantrobot 6y ago
> When you buy cheap shoes, they break quickly, forcing you to buy another pair, ultimately costing more over time than if you had just bought good shoes to begin with. This is only a "fallacy" if someone chooses to purchase the cheap shoes despite having the capability to buy good shoes. Being poor is expensive. If you can't buy good shoes you're stuck in a feedback loop of making do with cheap shoes. The same goes for many items and services. There's not a good option for a lot of people close to their margins.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  You can always go without shoes for a while to save up for good ones. A lot of the things people don't even consider giving up are non-essential. There's a strange hoarder mentality where poor people are unwilling to sacrifice anything at all, even if it led to future improvement. It's another fallacy, I think. When you're hungry it wouldn't occur to many to voluntarily fast. Sugars fool humans well. Artificial flavorings fool them even better. Note the core of my argument: $1 of good food sustains you longer than $1 of bad food. What good food is so expensive per smallest unit sold that anyone couldn't switch to it?
refurb 6y ago
No, this is not true in the least. Research has been done that shows that cheap, mass produced produce is just as nutritious as organic produce that costs several times more.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  The research is mixed and inconclusive. A 2019 meta-analysis by Kurzgesagt [1] claims that organic food is slightly more nutritious with increased levels of antioxidants. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es In my personal experience, I can taste the frigging poison in non-organic produce, and processed food just makes me more hungry.

cortesoft 6y ago

I don’t think the data backs that up. The percentage of obese people would indicate that food not having enough calories is not the issue.

hypertele-Xii 6y ago
You don't judge the quality of food by the amount of calories in it.

giantrobot 6y ago

> When you buy cheap shoes, they break quickly, forcing you to buy another pair, ultimately costing more over time than if you had just bought good shoes to begin with. This is only a "fallacy" if someone chooses to purchase the cheap shoes despite having the capability to buy good shoes. Being poor is expensive. If you can't buy good shoes you're stuck in a feedback loop of making do with cheap shoes. The same goes for many items and services. There's not a good option for a lot of people close to their margins.

hypertele-Xii 6y ago
You can always go without shoes for a while to save up for good ones. A lot of the things people don't even consider giving up are non-essential. There's a strange hoarder mentality where poor people are unwilling to sacrifice anything at all, even if it led to future improvement. It's another fallacy, I think. When you're hungry it wouldn't occur to many to voluntarily fast. Sugars fool humans well. Artificial flavorings fool them even better. Note the core of my argument: $1 of good food sustains you longer than $1 of bad food. What good food is so expensive per smallest unit sold that anyone couldn't switch to it?

refurb 6y ago

No, this is not true in the least. Research has been done that shows that cheap, mass produced produce is just as nutritious as organic produce that costs several times more.

hypertele-Xii 6y ago
The research is mixed and inconclusive. A 2019 meta-analysis by Kurzgesagt [1] claims that organic food is slightly more nutritious with increased levels of antioxidants. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es In my personal experience, I can taste the frigging poison in non-organic produce, and processed food just makes me more hungry.