5 ms·

> that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/ke

> that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... The metric of whether or not someone literally dies of starvation is a pathetic metric.

toolz 4y ago
did you read the definition of the very lowest tier of "very low food security" metric? It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition. The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules. We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships" And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?
  - toolz 4y ago
    if you read the rest of my comment I'm sure you'll find a point in there. Picking out a single comment you don't like and ignoring the context of the debate adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not about to debate the merits of diet 100 years ago vs today in a thread about whether or not people in the US can or can't get access to adequate nutrition.
- thereare5lights 4y ago
  > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". The metrics people used 100 years ago are of no concern to me and indeed the values those people held are more often than not abhorrent. > Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. When faced with data, you persist in this lie. > Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed False, food deserts coupled with the fact that the more nutritious foods are much more expensive make it extremely difficult to do so. > I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. That's easy af to do when it's voluntary. > We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me. This tells me that you've never been poor. One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods.
  - toolz 4y ago
    > One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods. Obesity is caused exclusively by calorie surplus. You can literally eat pure sugar, twinkies, and sugary beverages exclusively at base metabolism maintenance calories and never become obese. As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and lived far below the poverty line for like 8 years of my adult life. Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can eat far healthier than the average american on the lowest budgets in the US. At literally half the poverty line if you spend 30% of your budget on food that's $5 a day on food - now you've probably never been poor so you don't understand how far $5 can take you in america - here's a nice showcase of what you can eat for $3.33/day https://stackyourdollars.com/eat-on-5-a-day/ https://stackyourdollars.com/eat-on-5-a-day/ that's bacon/eggs/toast for breakfast beef burritos for lunch chicken and vegetables for dinner and that meat you're spending money on can all be replaced by far cheaper healthier alternatives like lentils or beans So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about yet another $5/day menu that includes snacks, with mostly healthy foods and surpasses most peoples calorie needs https://uhs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/sos-eatingwell5dollarsaday.pdf https://uhs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/sos-eatingwell5... I could do this all day, honestly as it's not even remotely hard to eat very healthy and very well on $5/day

toolz 4y ago

did you read the definition of the very lowest tier of "very low food security" metric? It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition. The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules. We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.

sofixa 4y ago
> It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships" And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?
- toolz 4y ago
  if you read the rest of my comment I'm sure you'll find a point in there. Picking out a single comment you don't like and ignoring the context of the debate adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not about to debate the merits of diet 100 years ago vs today in a thread about whether or not people in the US can or can't get access to adequate nutrition.
thereare5lights 4y ago
> It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". The metrics people used 100 years ago are of no concern to me and indeed the values those people held are more often than not abhorrent. > Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. When faced with data, you persist in this lie. > Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed False, food deserts coupled with the fact that the more nutritious foods are much more expensive make it extremely difficult to do so. > I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. That's easy af to do when it's voluntary. > We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me. This tells me that you've never been poor. One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods.
- toolz 4y ago
  > One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods. Obesity is caused exclusively by calorie surplus. You can literally eat pure sugar, twinkies, and sugary beverages exclusively at base metabolism maintenance calories and never become obese. As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and lived far below the poverty line for like 8 years of my adult life. Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can eat far healthier than the average american on the lowest budgets in the US. At literally half the poverty line if you spend 30% of your budget on food that's $5 a day on food - now you've probably never been poor so you don't understand how far $5 can take you in america - here's a nice showcase of what you can eat for $3.33/day https://stackyourdollars.com/eat-on-5-a-day/ https://stackyourdollars.com/eat-on-5-a-day/ that's bacon/eggs/toast for breakfast beef burritos for lunch chicken and vegetables for dinner and that meat you're spending money on can all be replaced by far cheaper healthier alternatives like lentils or beans So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about yet another $5/day menu that includes snacks, with mostly healthy foods and surpasses most peoples calorie needs https://uhs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/sos-eatingwell5dollarsaday.pdf https://uhs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/sos-eatingwell5... I could do this all day, honestly as it's not even remotely hard to eat very healthy and very well on $5/day