2 ms·
A) You said nothing about economic status, which makes all the difference in the world. Poorer people universally have worse health than middle-income or wealth
by icey 18y ago
A) You said nothing about economic status, which makes all the difference in the world. Poorer people universally have worse health than middle-income or wealthy people.
B) Rice and beans isn't only eaten by Hispanics; maybe you should turn off the Lou Dobbs and pay a little attention.
- kingkongrevenge 18y agoPoorer people can't afford good food and have to eat mostly starchy staples. That's why their health is generally worse. And you are quite wrong about low income "universally" meaning poor health. There are poor populations all over the world with good health from good diets. The healthiest sub-population in the US, and possibly the healthiest group in the industrialized world, are working class whites in the upper mid-west, in states like Minnesota. They eat a lot of meat.
- icey 18y agoI guess those nuts over at the MacArthur foundation have no idea what they're talking about. You may want to submit your theories there. http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.951947/k.11B4/Research_Networks__Socioeconomic_Status_and_Health.htm http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.951947/k.11B4/R...
- kingkongrevenge 18y agoI guess this is some survey of the US which concludes the obvious: that income and health generally correlate. The best lesson to extract is probably "Don't eat like poor people." Which was my original point. It still ignores the plain fact that various poor populations with good diets are quite healthy. The exceptions invalidate the simplistic assumption about the general case and point to diet.