Plan B Forum

When something is too cheap it is often harmful.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/6/5874499/map ... ds-on-food







yrs,
rubato

It's a tad more complex than that rube.

Let's start with the insanity of subsidizing corn, processing it to death, then putting it into everything we eat. The rapid change to a sedentary culture. The skyrocketing costs of education, but kids don't even have Phys Ed any more (and we have to invent video games with "movement" to get kids (and adults) to get off their backsides).

It's a tad more complex than that rube.

Ya think?

Well, I guess if one is to follow the "reasoning" in the OP we'd be a much healthier country if people had to spend nearly 50% of their income on food like they do in Pakistan...

One rarely sees an obese Pakistani...There are even fewer obese people in Bangladesh...(those lucky bastards...)

And of course, just as it does in combating climate change, North Korea can boast the proudest record of all in terms of eliminating the scourge of obesity...

So I suppose the logical conclusion would be that we should try to be more like North Korea....

ETA:

Come to think of it, one really good way to reduce obesity would be to eliminate indoor plumbing...

If everybody had to walk a mile to the local well to draw water, and wash their clothes by beating them on a rock at the local creek, and hike back and forth from the outhouse, just think of all the additional exercise people would be getting...

And while we're at it, we can get rid of stoves and ovens too; gathering and/or chopping wood to cook over a open fire everyday burns a lot of calories...

And let's get rid of air conditioning and central heating...

Shivering is great for speeding up the metabolism, and sweating is a wonderful way to lose pounds...

Every one of those proposals is every bit as rational and reasonable as "let's fight obesity by making food cost more"...

If you compare the following graph from wikipedia, you can see, as Guinevere wrote, the cause of obesity is much more complex than percentage of money spent on food.

Otherwise, Japan, for example, should be a lot higher on the fat people list.

Otherwise, Japan, for example, should be a lot higher on the fat people list.

Yeah, they ought to all look like Sumo Wrestlers...

So I guess it can't be "explained in one graph" afterall...

Lord Jim wrote: So I guess it can't be "explained in one graph" afterall...

This one comes close:

Excessive lack of affluence, never pretty...

There are other factors, to be sure, but cheap food appears to be a dominant factor.:

Look at the next four countries on the obesity list. 3 of the next four are closest to the US in food expenditures (Aus isn't on the first list but I would be surprised if food costs are that different from the UK).


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2665793.stm


Cheap and convenient.

Higher quality food, like fresh produce, costs more and takes time to prepare. Part of the solution to obesity is preparing food at home using what are usually more expensive ingredients.


A theme I have mentioned before is that we have not evolved cultural methods of dealing with << too much >>* and modern technology has been working hard very successfully to provide << too much >> to us with food as with everything else**. We are wired genetically to survive hardship and periods of scarcity not to thrive when there is a surfeit. We are going to have to evolve methods of coping and then methods of transmitting that knowledge through education. The fact that some countries with low food costs have (so far) escaped the plague of obesity is proof that I am right and we can succeed. As a culture overall we are about where the public understanding of smoking was in the mid 1970s and we have made huge changes in smoking behavior since then. This will take time but I don't think it is as difficult as getting people to stop smoking.



yrs,
rubato

* << too much >> and << too convenient >> are two sides of the same coin. Cost in dollars and costs in time are similar.

** Another thing we have too much of is "entertainment". But that can wait for another day.

Higher quality food, like fresh produce, costs more and takes time to prepare. Part of the solution to obesity is preparing food at home using what are usually more expensive ingredients.

Well, now you're essentially making the exact opposite argument of what you said initially...

The problem isn't that "food costs too little"...

It's that higher quality, more nutritious food costs too much...

So the solution isn't to increase the percentage of disposable income people pay for food; (as you clearly suggest in the OP) it's to make better foods more affordable and accessible...

That's a much better argument....

(I really hope you're not going to try to pretend that's what you were saying all along...)

I found this interesting as it went against my "conventional" thinking that obesity rates were a combination of increased calorie consumption and lower exercise levels. Looks like the "mass" increase is almost all about a lack of exercise. Maybe Rubato's initial graph hints at the real culprit -- if a population is wealthy enough that food expenditure is a small part of the budget, then that population also has the modern conveniences and amusements that cause a lack of exercise?

A study in the US found over the past 20 years activity levels have fallen dramatically as average body mass index (BMI) has risen.

But the amount of calories consumed has remained the same.

Scientists say a nationwide drop in leisure time exercise, especially among young women, may be responsible for the upward trend in obesity rates.

It is recommended adults do 150 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, cycling or gardening, each week. Studies have shown about two in three adults in the UK fail to achieve this.

Fewer manual jobs, more cars and home entertainment technology mean most people get much less exercise now than their parents or grandparents did.

Two thirds of men and almost six in ten women in the UK are overweight or obese. In Western Europe, just Iceland and Malta have more.

By analysing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) researchers found the number of US women who reported no physical activity jumped from 19.1 per cent in 1994 to 51.7 per cent in 2010. For men, the number rose from 11.4 per cent to 43.5 per cent.

During the period, average BMI has increased across the board, with the most dramatic rise found among young women between 18 and 39.

* * *

While increased calorie intake is often blamed for rising rates of obesity, no association between these was found in this study. In contrast, an association was found between the trends over time for lack of physical activity and high BMI numbers.

Added Prof Ladabaum: "Our findings do not support the popular notion the increase of obesity in the United States can be attributed primarily to sustained increase over time in the average daily caloric intake of Americans."

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/hea ... y-epidemic

Absolutely the lack of movement is a significant piece of it, and perhaps its the affluence that is leading the way.

I was shaking my head at some cable company commercial while I was watching the rebroadcast of Le Tour last night (ironic, I know - I should put one of my bikes on the trainer, and make myself pedal if I'm sitting on my backside to watch) --- "record 15 channels, never miss another show again" followed by some woman sighing "I hate it when I miss my shows." Seriously, we need to record 15 channels? Who has the time to watch all that crap?

eta: recording 15 channels at one time!

Hey Guin what did you think of Le Tour in England?

Gorgeous scenery, great drama (and who didn't feel bad for Mark Cavendish), but boy your folk need to learn how to watch bicycle racing!

eta: I do mean that with all do respect. The crowds were tremendous and it was wonderful to see so much interest and support. Even without Wiggins (a whole separate rant - I'm not a Froome fan). But the spectator etiquette needs some work. I've never seen more spectator-related crashes.

Looking primarily on the "intake" side of obesity, look at the dramatic change in eating habits. In 1960, "fast food" basically did not exist. There was White Tower, but it wasn't the same as today's fast food. Pizza shops were rare. Prepared foods were not prevalent in grocery stores, and were considered one-time things to have on the rare occasions when you did not have time to prepare a "real" meal.

Refrigerators were not filled with "snack" type foods or carbonated beverages.

Most meals were actually prepared from scratch, rather than thrown together. Mothers made it a point to serve healthy vegetables with each meal, and to force kids to eat them (with sometimes humorous results). Now, you hear parents saying, "Well Brinn just won't eat that sort of thing." As though it's the 3-year-old's choice about what to eat.

To me, the graph at the top just says that we are a relatively affluent country.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s, with a mother who couldn't really cook and fed us lots of packaged processed foods in generous portions, keeping chips and cookies and soda in stock in the house throughout our teenage years - which also included frequent trips to McD's, Burger King, Wendy's and Taco Bell with friends.

I never had an issue with excess weight growing up, and it was relatively uncommon among my friends.

Biggest difference I see between my life then and most kids' now? I walked and rode my bike at least a couple of miles each day, whether to school and back during the school year, or tooling around for fun and/or to summer job during vacations.

A very recent study showed that the one huge difference in American society isn't the quantity/quality of food we eat, but that we have become a predominantly sedentary society, to an alarming degree among our children.

Yes. I'm still heavy...but 8 years ago, I went from a sedentary job (driving a bus) to a physical one (drive/load a truck). My intake has changed very little...but I dropped ~20+lbs. (Anyone making fat jokes, be warned: I WILL sit on you.)

My wife eats enough for three people...a few years ago, she talked with her doctor about maintaining muscle mass. One thing he wanted was a day-by-day log of what she ate for a week. She did it, he saw it, figured out the calories...and didn't believe her! She's good for 3800-4000 calories/day, minimum...and it's a steady struggle for her to not LOSE muscle mass, due to the combination of a very-high activity level (especially now, having gone from driving wreckers to driving and unloading a box truck) and a metabolism like a furnace.