Alice Waters attacks obesity

[Mrs.Jenner]

It is interesting that a lot of the focus is on children in inner-city neighborhoods when things are often just as bad -if not worse in rural areas when it comes to the eating choices children make and the grocery choices available to parents on extremely limited incomes in small towns.

I think of my own experience of growing up in a very small town where 90 percent of the kids in school were eligible for free/reduced lunch and most would go for the empty starches and sugars. In fact as I recall the school breakfast served (and I am not making this up) cocoa puffs, applejacks and lucky charms. So the school was instantly failing right away.

When I was quite young my Mother had no car and had to do her shopping via the bus and it was incredibly hard taking care of the groceries with a 1 year old and a 5 year old to keep track of. And there were two grocery stores in town and that was it. Essentially she had to make those food stamps last. My Mother was pretty creative when it came to creating original meals but also one gets the urge for things like potato chips. Yeah one should eat well and varied but quite frankly you have to give a little now and then. It is the little things that are the difference between grim survival and living. I recall that for a number of years as a child we couldn't afford to have milk. We could have powdered milk sometimes -but only for our cereal.

Often in rural towns people are limited to what is offered and a lot of people have poor diets. I recall in my hometown the rate of obesity, diabetes, and heart attack was fairly high.

There is a scene in the book, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" that I have always recalled -where the Mother allows the children to dump their coffee and condensed milk down the drain as their form of luxury. Sure the milk and coffee could have been saved but she let them have something.

Often for some people the cookies and cakes are their small luxuries. Unfortunately it becomes their everything.

[Patrick S]

A few years ago, NPR interviewed a single mother living in New York City.  Her daughter was 8 years old and was quite overweight.  The mother said that at the store, she could by grapes for $3/lb which were invariably moldy and would rot within a day.  Or, she could buy cookies for less than $1, which would last forever.  She said it bothered her, but she always chose the cookies -- she couldn't afford the produce, and even if she could, the produce sold at inner city markets tends to be rotten.  The announcer on NPR said that what ends up in inner city stores is produce that suburban grocery stores could not sell.  When money is tight, families are going to be forced to buy inexpensive food and inevitably highly processed that family members will eat and not complain about.

←

I kinda sympathize, but not much. If this women thought her only choices were moldy grapes or . . . cookies, its no wonder her daughter is overweight, and it sounds like she needs some training on how to shop. Eating healthy doesn't have to be any more expensive than eating unhealthy. Even if the produce is garbage there are plenty of other choices.

←

For instance...?

←

For instance, canned fruits and vegetables, frozen fruits and vegetables, dried fruits, generic cereals (the healthier varieties), and so on. I would be very surprised if the store referred to in the story above -- the one with the produce section-- did not also have a canned fruit and vegetable aisle. Maybe it didnt, but I doubt it.

If you like, I could invite you to come along with me to the one "food market" I've seen so far in Chester--which, like so many inner-city stores in cities without supermarkets (Chester being one such place), has a very limited selection of fresh anything--and maybe we could put together a healthy grocery list from what's available.

←

Weird. Why are you equating fresh with "healthy"? I may prefer fresh to canned or frozen, but nutritionally canned and frozen goods are usually perfectly adequate. Certainly I would rather have fresh salmon than canned tuna fish on wheat, or fresh strawberries to canned pears, but certainly the tuna fish and the pears are passable.

I will grant that she has choices other than cookies or bad produce,

←

I'm glad you agree, because that was my whole point! I didn't think it was controversial.

. . . but in most cases, those choices are all highly processed foods that carry their own downsides with them.  About the only fresh meats to be found in these stores are in the deli case, if the store has one.

←

Again, I would certainly prefer fresh meats to frozen or canned, but I don't necessarily equate fresh with healthy. Maybe I just need to get out and see more of the country. As I said, I've lived a lot of places in my region, including very low incomes areas, and I never was prohibitively far from a grocery that had a reasonable selection of fruits and vegetables, and reasonably healthy snacks, even though they might have been dwarfed by 300 varieties of chips, cookies, Little Debbies, and candy.

[kpurvis]

I would hope that kpurvis would post a link or some information on the journalistic work she did in inner-city grocery stores. Lots of good information there.

←

It may be a moot point after all the disagreement on the issue, but I was able to get a link to the original series. The link will take you to the column I described, and on the right side of the page, there are four related links. The first is a sidebar, about transporting the elderly to stores, and the next three are the three main stories in the series, in order.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/living/13991541.htm

←

(I'll read the series later, when I get home.)

One example of a supermarket operator who has figured out that you can make money in the inner city is Supermarkets General (Pathmark), which has made opening inner-city stores something of a specialty over the last decade or so.

Their store at North Philadelphia Station is busy at almost all hours of the day.

←

We think alike: The third part in the series is about the Pathmark in Newark, N.J., which was the store's first attempt to address shopping in an inner-city neighborhood.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

In one word the problem is: education.

←

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department?

Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's.

←

Right you are, jsolomon.

Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself.

[Busboy]

In one word the problem is: education.

←

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department?

Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's.

←

Right you are, jsolomon.

Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself.

←

But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into?

Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah...

A bunch of links on this site.

Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs.

[halloweencat]

i have grocery shopped in a variety of areas, and i see, overall, most folks (of all economic persuasions) making the same poor product choices.

this is, of course, anecdotal. i cannot divine from mere observation if the customer in front of me in the check out line usually purchases lots of vegetables or if the cookies and chips and bars she's now about to acquire are an unusual splurge.

overall, i see a lot more that would be classified as non-nutritious selling, than nutritious. you can also see it by the shelf space. more shelf space goes to an endless pantheon of cookies than goes to dried beans and grains.

on the bright side, it has also been my observation that stores are generally stocking increasing quantities of nutritious stuffs (organics, no trans-fats, low-salt, a greater variety of produce, etc.) than ever before -- and +that's+ truly encouraging.

cheers --

[Patrick S]

i have grocery shopped in a variety of areas, and i see, overall, most folks (of all economic persuasions) making the same poor product choices.

this is, of course, anecdotal.  i cannot divine from mere observation if the customer in front of me in the check out line usually purchases lots of vegetables or if the cookies and chips and bars she's now about to acquire are an unusual splurge.

←

The Winn-Dixie where I used to shop always seemed to have only one check lane open, so invariably you ended up waiting in line for a good while with a dozen other people. You coldn't help but notice what was in other people's baskets, and notice the disproportionate amount of stuff like that. The store actually had a fine selection of fruits and veggiess, but you could tell by the dust on the cans that alot of that stuff wasn't restocked very frequently.

[JohnL]

I also would agree with many of the points made above.

However,

These discussions often get mired in rich vs poor or black vs white.

While many of these issues are real and valid they often become "excuses" or rationale--:"they are......so they can't help themselves." or "well it is no mystery that.......have an obesity problem because...."

Often these arguments are put forward to advance an agenda.

The root cause of obesity is not so simple--it is a result of human behavior. Behavior that is formed at an early age (before school) and reinforced by family, peer pressure, and many many other things.

In the end--it is impossible to escape the fact that children's behaviors are influenced more by their parents. It is in the end--the parents who have the greatest opportunity to influence their children.

IMOP--the main part of the problem is parents have ceded much of their responsibilities to others--(schools, TV, other kids/peers etc etc).

We are now expecting our schools to "do it all"--I fear that we have lost a generation of parents--and now our best hope is to try for the parents of the next generation--today's kids.

[JohnL]

In one word the problem is: education.

←

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department?

Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's.

←

Right you are, jsolomon.

Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself.

←

But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into?

Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah...

A bunch of links on this site.

Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs.

←

I would posit that obesity is currently linked and correlated with hundreds of issues--with hundreds of links to come.

Someone --anyone--with an agenda can find some statistics or can initiate a study to come up with just about anything.

The big hole in the argument presented in the link you provided is that there are too many thin people in "poor" neighborhoods that he can't explain away with his shoddy theory.

The fact is--obesity is the result of behavior.

A person takes in more calories than they burn off.

Show me a person of any race, creed, economic status, "zip code", social status, anything you want to consider--who takes in more calories than they burn off and I will show you a candidate for obesity.

(medical anomalies, genetics etc excluded of course).

Inner city kids who spend a few hours on basketball courts can load up on MacDonalds and be thin. (I know this personally because I was an inner city kid).

I also lived in Little Italy in the Bronx--want easily accessible fresh healthy food--it is literally within minutes of thousands of "poor" people. I would say that a large number of residents were obese. (my best friend was nicknamed "fat" Tommy).

If we want to wallow in these side arguments (ie--statistics show poor people are more likely to be fat ergo money is a key factor in obesity....) we will never begin to solve the problem.

There is risk involved in most everything we do--habits good or bad are reinforced by many things.

We had an idea an inkling that cigarette smoking was possibly bad for us back in Mark Twain's time.

Cigarette smoking--only recently-- has been in decline after years of education--coupled with the fact that it is pretty clear one can get some pretty bad diseases from smoking--and the fact that many people have personal experience--they either got a disease or know someone who has from smoking--watching uncle Fred die slowly from emphysema can be a powerful motivator.

Obesity is just recently being linked to health problems--diabetes etc.

It is all about understanding risk and reward.

One doesn't have to eat whole grains and sprouts with wheatgrass juice to avoid obesity.

One just needs to have a reasonably balanced diet and exercise.

(Note reasonable is a key here).

Yes--availability of a variety of good quality food products in all neighborhoods is an important issue. I also suggest that it is at best a minor factor (maybe even a red herring of sorts) distracting everyone from getting to the real causes.

[Busboy]

In one word the problem is: education.

←

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department?

Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's.

←

Right you are, jsolomon.

Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself.

←

But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into?

Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah...

A bunch of links on this site.

Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs.

←

I would posit that obesity is currently linked and correlated with hundreds of issues--with hundreds of links to come.

Someone --anyone--with an agenda can find some statistics or can initiate a study to come up with just about anything.

The big hole in the argument presented in the link you provided is that there are too many thin people in "poor" neighborhoods that he can't explain away with his shoddy theory.

The fact is--obesity is the result of behavior.

A person takes in more calories than they burn off.

Show me a person of any race, creed, economic status, "zip code", social status, anything you want to consider--who takes in more calories than they burn off and I will show you a candidate for obesity.

(medical anomalies, genetics etc excluded of course).

Inner city kids who spend a few hours on basketball courts can load up on MacDonalds and be thin. (I know this personally because I was an inner city kid).

I also lived in Little Italy in the Bronx--want easily accessible fresh healthy food--it is literally within minutes of thousands of "poor" people. I would say that a large number of residents were obese. (my best friend was nicknamed "fat" Tommy).

If we want to wallow in these side arguments (ie--statistics show poor people are more likely to be fat ergo money is a key factor in obesity....) we will never begin to solve the problem.

There is risk involved in most everything we do--habits good or bad are reinforced by many things.

We had an idea an inkling that cigarette smoking was possibly bad for us back in Mark Twain's time.

Cigarette smoking--only recently-- has been in decline after years of education--coupled with the fact that it is pretty clear one can get some pretty bad diseases from smoking--and the fact that many people have personal experience--they either got a disease or know someone who has from smoking--watching uncle Fred die slowly from emphysema can be a powerful motivator.

Obesity is just recently being linked to health problems--diabetes etc.

It is all about understanding risk and reward.

One doesn't have to eat whole grains and sprouts with wheatgrass juice to avoid obesity.

One just needs to have a reasonably balanced diet and exercise.

(Note reasonable is a key here).

Yes--availability of a variety of good quality food products in all neighborhoods is an important issue. I also suggest that it is at best a minor factor (maybe even a red herring of sorts) distracting everyone from getting to the real causes.

←

The old "anybody can find a link" argument is old, dull and incorrect. There is a significant correlation between obesity and income, and another between income and education. In fact, once you get rid of things like genetics and illness, they may be the strongest. If you want to try to change the behaviors that lead to obesity, it makes sense to begin your work in the communities in which obesity-linked behaviors (pathologies, diseases, market forces, whatever) are most common.

If you decide to turn to a life of crime, are you going to say, "hmmmm, there are thousands of places to rob, almost anyplace has something to steal," or are you going to stick up a bank because, as the saying goes, "that's where the money is?"

[JohnL]

i have grocery shopped in a variety of areas, and i see, overall, most folks (of all economic persuasions) making the same poor product choices.

this is, of course, anecdotal.  i cannot divine from mere observation if the customer in front of me in the check out line usually purchases lots of vegetables or if the cookies and chips and bars she's now about to acquire are an unusual splurge.

←

The Winn-Dixie where I used to shop always seemed to have only one check lane open, so invariably you ended up waiting in line for a good while with a dozen other people. You coldn't help but notice what was in other people's baskets, and notice the disproportionate amount of stuff like that. The store actually had a fine selection of fruits and veggiess, but you could tell by the dust on the cans that alot of that stuff wasn't restocked very frequently.

←

I believe that MacDonald's recently ended their healthy food offerings (salads?) because no one ordered them.

The truth is--as more and more people become aware of the risk--rewards situation and take control of their diets the marketplace in all neighborhoods will reflect this.

I keep saying here that this issue is not about the availability of healthy food--it is about people who are in control of their diets. It is about moderation and assessing the risk rewards of eating habits etc. getting exercise.

Many of these studies remind me of the Woody allen film Bananas.

We all agree that dirty underwear is a problem. Therefore your government has banned the wearing of dirty underwear. to enforce this ban for the good of the people--it is hereby decreed that all people will now wear their underwear outside their clothing.

[Carrot Top]

While rummaging around in a library once for facts on this and that, two pieces of information came before my eyes on the same day.

One was the rates of obesity for the area I lived in. It was high, very high.

Another was (this was in a federally-produced document - I am not sure what that says but anyway) the rate of "dissatisfaction with life" in the area I lived in (it was looking at factors such as depression levels, etc. including other things). This was also very high. It was exceptionally high, as a matter of fact. The numbers topped most of the state.

The area was rural. The income levels were low, quite low. There was little opportunity for employment in the area.

Most people had not gone to college, and at least half did not expect that their children would go to college either.

It was a primarily white population.

There were federal programs everywhere you might cast your eye in this place.

And the grocery stores were few and far between, small and ill-lit, gloomy and poorly stocked.

Sometimes it might be that too many apples can upset the applecart, and one straw can break a camel's back in terms of "when" it is that someone does become a long-term obesity subject. It seems that today we are seeing entire families and generations becoming long-term obese.

Why do we need to sweep one corner of the room (after coming to a supposed agreement on what corner needs sweeping) when the entire place needs a make-over?

Whatever can be done, should be done. And it should be done without finger-pointing for glass houses are everywhere.

[JohnL]

In one word the problem is: education.

←

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department?

Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's.

←

Right you are, jsolomon.

Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself.

←

But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into?

Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah...

A bunch of links on this site.

Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs.

←

I would posit that obesity is currently linked and correlated with hundreds of issues--with hundreds of links to come.

Someone --anyone--with an agenda can find some statistics or can initiate a study to come up with just about anything.

The big hole in the argument presented in the link you provided is that there are too many thin people in "poor" neighborhoods that he can't explain away with his shoddy theory.

The fact is--obesity is the result of behavior.

A person takes in more calories than they burn off.

Show me a person of any race, creed, economic status, "zip code", social status, anything you want to consider--who takes in more calories than they burn off and I will show you a candidate for obesity.

(medical anomalies, genetics etc excluded of course).

Inner city kids who spend a few hours on basketball courts can load up on MacDonalds and be thin. (I know this personally because I was an inner city kid).

I also lived in Little Italy in the Bronx--want easily accessible fresh healthy food--it is literally within minutes of thousands of "poor" people. I would say that a large number of residents were obese. (my best friend was nicknamed "fat" Tommy).

If we want to wallow in these side arguments (ie--statistics show poor people are more likely to be fat ergo money is a key factor in obesity....) we will never begin to solve the problem.

There is risk involved in most everything we do--habits good or bad are reinforced by many things.

We had an idea an inkling that cigarette smoking was possibly bad for us back in Mark Twain's time.

Cigarette smoking--only recently-- has been in decline after years of education--coupled with the fact that it is pretty clear one can get some pretty bad diseases from smoking--and the fact that many people have personal experience--they either got a disease or know someone who has from smoking--watching uncle Fred die slowly from emphysema can be a powerful motivator.

Obesity is just recently being linked to health problems--diabetes etc.

It is all about understanding risk and reward.

One doesn't have to eat whole grains and sprouts with wheatgrass juice to avoid obesity.

One just needs to have a reasonably balanced diet and exercise.

(Note reasonable is a key here).

Yes--availability of a variety of good quality food products in all neighborhoods is an important issue. I also suggest that it is at best a minor factor (maybe even a red herring of sorts) distracting everyone from getting to the real causes.

←

The old "anybody can find a link" argument is old, dull and incorrect. There is a significant correlation between obesity and income, and another between income and education. In fact, once you get rid of things like genetics and illness, they may be the strongest. If you want to try to change the behaviors that lead to obesity, it makes sense to begin your work in the communities in which obesity-linked behaviors (pathologies, diseases, market forces, whatever) are most common.

If you decide to turn to a life of crime, are you going to say, "hmmmm, there are thousands of places to rob, almost anyplace has something to steal," or are you going to stick up a bank because, as the saying goes, "that's where the money is?"

←

It may be "old" and "dull" but sorry-it has been proven correct over and over.

I have seen a study that indicates the fastest growing segment of the population for obesity is economically well off middle class folks.

(I am sure you will find a study to dispute this study).

See it is an endless search for an answer based upon pondering and quatifying symptoms and never addressing real causes.

IMOP your crime analogy is a bit strained--but I believe that many of the solutions these studies point to are akin to "let's solve the crime problem by eliminating the banks."

You gotta admit it would have a major impact on those bank robbery statistics!

I will agree with you that education is very important--knowledge is king!

(but say-- isn't this an "old" and "dull" saw? I think we would agree it is true)

So if we agree that education is very important then--nutrition and health should be taught in all schools--not just those where there are a preponderance of obese people. Ya know "an ounce of prevention..."

Gee another old, dull idea.

Also we are really talking about grammer school education not college as much (it is too late)--so income really doesn't factor in here.

But it is not just about education--what about all those smart obese folks who have large incomes (a lot of anecdotal info in this thread--see the fat college professor testimony!).

also let's look at poor people who exercise regularly--wonder what the obesity rate is there?

Is it money or is it exercise?!

I am obviously, being a bit facetious.

I honestly believe that if we take the knowledge that

1--obesity leads to bad diseases

2--people who eat a reasonably balanced a diet and exercise regularly are unlikely to be obese.

and get the message out in all communities.

then

there will be positive action at the community level.

Each community will have actions that are tailored to that community's circumstances.

The Alice Waters effort that started this thread is a great example. also the Philadelphia experiment someone noted.

Good food exercise and moderation--communities can do a lot to promote these things.

(it really won't require a sea change or a lot of money either).

[JohnL]

While rummaging around in a library once for facts on this and that, two pieces of information came before my eyes on the same day.

One was the rates of obesity for the area I lived in. It was high, very high.

Another was (this was in a federally-produced document - I am not sure what that says but anyway) the rate of "dissatisfaction with life" in the area I lived in (it was looking at factors such as depression levels, etc. including other things). This was also very high. It was exceptionally high, as a matter of fact. The numbers topped most of the state.

The area was rural. The income levels were low, quite low. There was little opportunity for employment in the area.

Most people had not gone to college, and at least half did not expect that their children would go to college either.

It was a primarily white population.

There were federal programs everywhere you might cast your eye in this place.

And the grocery stores were few and far between, small and ill-lit, gloomy and poorly stocked.

Sometimes it might be that too many apples can upset the applecart, and one straw can break a camel's back in terms of "when" it is that someone does become a long-term obesity subject. It seems that today we are seeing entire families and generations becoming long-term obese.

Why do we need to sweep one corner of the room (after coming to a supposed agreement on what corner needs sweeping) when the entire place needs a make-over?

Whatever can be done, should be done. And it should be done without finger-pointing for glass houses are everywhere.

←

This was a great post--thanks!

Eventually, the message about obesity will reach this community--the elementary schools are a good start.

parents will become more aware as well.

I would bet that the community will come together and help to alleviate this problem.

Your post is a good example of how government programs can be well intentioned but never really solve problems that only people/communities can.

I would like to see government support redirected to programs that help educate and then help support communities and people to help themselves.

You noted that there was a high level of "depression."

Too many efforts these days are by the study/statistic crowd who would note that--high level of obesity and high level of depression---ergo let's spend a million bucks and build a permanent government funded circus and comedy club.

You are right--these issues like obesity are very complex--I believe that each community rich and poor can --with basic education and some support/help--can deal with them best.

I can point to a situation here in NY where a community of poor people organized and solved a housing problem that had eluded the government (state local and city for decades).

I keep coming back to perhaps one of the biggest and maybe easiest solutions--exercise.

People of all socio economic groups, of all races etc would be helped immensely if they exercised more. A regular walk requires no money and is certainly a good start.

(actually the food and diet issue is lessened a great deal if one exercises).

If we want "bang for the buck" in dealing with obesity --IMOP--this is where we ought to be focusing a lot of energy--and yes--some money.

I keep going back to a scene from "Supersize This" where two thin and obviously in shape inner city kids say they eat at MacDonalds all the time--they obviously play a lot of basketball.

I also know a number of rich guys who eat in French restaurants and fancy steak houses all the time--they all play squash regularly. maybe it ain't just about the food or the money.

I can' help but think there is at least a minor solution here.

[Patrick S]

In one word the problem is: education.

←

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department?

Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's.

←

Right you are, jsolomon.

Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself.

←

But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into?

Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah...

A bunch of links on this site.

Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs.

←

I would posit that obesity is currently linked and correlated with hundreds of issues--with hundreds of links to come.

Someone --anyone--with an agenda can find some statistics or can initiate a study to come up with just about anything.

The big hole in the argument presented in the link you provided is that there are too many thin people in "poor" neighborhoods that he can't explain away with his shoddy theory.

The fact is--obesity is the result of behavior.

A person takes in more calories than they burn off.

Show me a person of any race, creed, economic status, "zip code", social status, anything you want to consider--who takes in more calories than they burn off and I will show you a candidate for obesity.

(medical anomalies, genetics etc excluded of course).

Inner city kids who spend a few hours on basketball courts can load up on MacDonalds and be thin. (I know this personally because I was an inner city kid).

I also lived in Little Italy in the Bronx--want easily accessible fresh healthy food--it is literally within minutes of thousands of "poor" people. I would say that a large number of residents were obese. (my best friend was nicknamed "fat" Tommy).

If we want to wallow in these side arguments (ie--statistics show poor people are more likely to be fat ergo money is a key factor in obesity....) we will never begin to solve the problem.

There is risk involved in most everything we do--habits good or bad are reinforced by many things.

We had an idea an inkling that cigarette smoking was possibly bad for us back in Mark Twain's time.

Cigarette smoking--only recently-- has been in decline after years of education--coupled with the fact that it is pretty clear one can get some pretty bad diseases from smoking--and the fact that many people have personal experience--they either got a disease or know someone who has from smoking--watching uncle Fred die slowly from emphysema can be a powerful motivator.

Obesity is just recently being linked to health problems--diabetes etc.

It is all about understanding risk and reward.

One doesn't have to eat whole grains and sprouts with wheatgrass juice to avoid obesity.

One just needs to have a reasonably balanced diet and exercise.

(Note reasonable is a key here).

Yes--availability of a variety of good quality food products in all neighborhoods is an important issue. I also suggest that it is at best a minor factor (maybe even a red herring of sorts) distracting everyone from getting to the real causes.

←

The old "anybody can find a link" argument is old, dull and incorrect. There is a significant correlation between obesity and income, and another between income and education.

←

Yes there is a signficant association between income and obesity, but the association appears to be becoming much more weak as higher income persons get heavier. 30 years ago there was a huge difference in obesity rates between higher and lower income, but today the gap has shrunk dramatically and income is now actually a fairly weak predictor of obesity. According to a CBS article on the subject:

Obesity is still most common among those with the lowest incomes — but not by much.

People earning the most money ($60,000 per year or more) had the biggest growth in obesity from the early 1970s to the turn of the century, say Maheshwari and colleagues.

"The fact is that obesity is increasing in all races, all income categories, and at a faster rate with people in higher incomes," says the University of Iowa's Jennifer Robinson, MD, MPH, in a news release.

"Obesity prevalence is now similar across all income categories, with obesity prevalence in the highest income group rapidly approaching that of the lowest income group," says Robinson, an associate professor of epidemiology who also worked on the study.

Between 1971-1974, the distribution of overweight/obese by income was as follows:

* Less than $25,000: 22.5 percent obese

* $25,000-$40,000: 16.1 percent obese

* $40,000-$60,000: 14.5 percent obese

* More than $60,000: 9.7 percent obese

By 2001-2002, the distribution was as follows:

* Less than $25,000: 32.5 percent obese

* $25,000-$40,000: 31.3 percent obese

* $40,000-$60,000: 30.3 percent obese

* More than $60,000: 26.8 percent obese

During the 30 years interval, the growth in obesity rates by income level was:

* Less than $25,000: increase of 144 percent

* $25,000-$40,000: increase of 194 percent

* $40,000-$60,000: increase of 209 percent

* More than $60,000: increase of 276 percent

[amylou]

Wow, I wish I remembered more details of this story on NPR, I didn't know there would be so many responses! I've been searching NPR's website but am trouble finding anything, I know I didn't dream this story up!

The mother who was interviewed mentioned that between working and raising a child on her own, both time and money were very tight. I would imagine that putting together a healthy snack with some frozen veggies, etc would be time consuming and difficult for a single mother to prepare, and would certainly not be the kind of thing any self-respecting eight year old would prepare for herself!!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3854505

Here is another NPR story discussing the link between income and obesity. I have to confess, I have not been able to listen to the whole thing yet

I remember learning in a Nutrition course in college that income and obesity were positively correlated for men and inversly correllated for women. Interesting.

[Patrick S]

The mother who was interviewed mentioned that between working and raising a child on her own, both time and money were very tight.  I would imagine that putting together a healthy snack with some frozen veggies, etc would be time consuming and difficult for a single mother to prepare . . .

←

More time-consuming than opening a Little Debbie, sure, but it doesnt have to be very time consuming and it certainly does not HAVE to be very difficult. I feel for anyone who is so pressed for time that they can't steam some broccoli, pour a bowl of generic Cheerios or open a can of mixed fruit!

Edited March 2, 2006 by Patrick S (log)

[JohnL]

Wow, I wish I remembered more details of this story on NPR, I didn't know there would be so many responses!  I've been searching NPR's website but am trouble finding anything, I know I didn't dream this story up!

The mother who was interviewed mentioned that between working and raising a child on her own, both time and money were very tight.  I would imagine that putting together a healthy snack with some frozen veggies, etc would be time consuming and difficult for a single mother to prepare, and would certainly not be the kind of thing any self-respecting eight year old would prepare for herself!!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3854505

Here is another NPR story discussing the link between income and obesity.  I have to confess, I have not been able to listen to the whole thing yet 

I remember learning in a Nutrition course in college that income and obesity were positively correlated for men and inversly correllated for women.  Interesting.

←

Amylou!

You are overloading on NPR --you need a more balanced diet of news from more sources!

I listened. IMOP the NPR story is indicative of how wrongheaded well intentioned people can be.

The women whose story they used to make a point said she chose to eat a $0.99 burger instead of a salad from her employers salad bar because the salad was something like four dollars a pound.

Thus the economic scape goat for obesity.

Let's think about this for a second--who eats one pound of salad?--that's a hell of a lot of lettuce!

I am looking at a five ounce container of mesclun from Whole Foods--enough for at least two people--five ounces!

All that woman does is make excuses for why she is 130 pounds overweight and NPR uses her excuses to establish their thesis that obesity is tied to income. This woman's problem is self control and portion control not lack of money.

If she was wealthy does anyone believe for a moment that she would buy a salad or more likely two burgers and some cake?

(by the way--check out PatrickS post above--the statistics are just not there).

NPR then goes on to explain that lean meat costs more therefore low income folks can't afford it and therefore they are more likely to be obese.

This is so patently ridiculous as to render their entire argument useless.

It does sound good though--until one examines more closely.

[amylou]

Haha! Overdosing on NPR ...that is DEFINITELY possible! They are certainly not the most "balanced" news source out there (what is!!??) I usually listen to NPR on my commute in the AM, and really can't in the evening -- it is just makes for too many monotone voices for one day.

I am going to try and remember to listen to that story more closely when I get home.

I had never really thought seriously about calories per dollar until right now. When I shop, I do have to consider prices carefully (I just graduated, and am *hoping* to go to law school, so I'm trying to save) - but I certainly do not worry about meeting my caloric needs. Howerver, many people need to, and if you are hungrt, you are likely to worry about calories first, then nutrition.

A pound of salad

[jsolomon]

The problem is not diet. Never has been, and never was.

The difference between us now, and our parents then, is much more a difference of activity level. Our parents never had the number cars we have, nor computers, nor telephones, nor e-mail. Very few had riding lawnmowers. And, a 6 block walk somewhere was not out of the question. Elevators? Hah!

So, what do we do? We say, "why are we fat?" In comes a stuffy labcoated nudnik who says, "well, fat is the long-term calorie storage molecule of the human body. Calories eaten but not used are stored as fat." So, what do we process that to mean? Eat fewer calories.

The answer is and always should be "get more active". Reducing calories does have its benefits, but sending the metabolism into starvation mode is not the correct answer to providing for adequate health. Studies show that exercise helps protect neurological function into old age. Exercise helps bolster the immune system. Exercise reduces blood pressure and heart rate. Exercise attenuates hunger. Exercise moderates glucose, insulin, and serotonin levels. Exercise helps maintain healthy skin and bone density.

Yes, I understand that proper nutrition is a part of this. But, our physiology has been tuned over millions of years through feast times and famine times. So, I'm betting that it can handle it, provided we do the maintenance exercise.

If 10 year old Sally or Johnny are fat, it's much more likely to be because they are sedentary than anything else. So, send them out to build some permanent muscle mass, don't cut off their Oreos--even if they are the food of the debbil. I assure you, it'll work.

[amylou]

I agree with the activity level argument. In addition to simple lifestyle changes (lawnmowing), any given job today is likely more sedentary than it was 50 years ago.

I would add something as well, and this may be anecdotal to my family, but the link between income and obesity has been discussed here and proves to be an interesting discussion. When I go out to the mall, movies, on a drive, etc, I often purchase a drink, snack, etc. My grandparents simply could not do this, as they could not afford to spend any extra money on a "snack" while out. While I am not overweight, I could see how each of my snack purchases could add up and pack on the pounds -- this is not a problem my grandparents would have had.

As a nation, as people have more disposable income, these snacks and little purchases sure add up around our collective waistline!

What an intersted, complicated topic....

The problem is not diet.  Never has been, and never was.

The difference between us now, and our parents then, is much more a difference of activity level.  Our parents never had the number cars we have, nor computers, nor telephones, nor e-mail.  Very few had riding lawnmowers.  And, a 6 block walk somewhere was not out of the question.  Elevators?  Hah!

So, what do we do?  We say, "why are we fat?"  In comes a stuffy labcoated nudnik who says, "well, fat is the long-term calorie storage molecule of the human body.  Calories eaten but not used are stored as fat."  So, what do we process that to mean?  Eat fewer calories.

The answer is and always should be "get more active".  Reducing calories does have its benefits, but sending the metabolism into starvation mode is not the correct answer to providing for adequate health.  Studies show that exercise helps protect neurological function into old age.  Exercise helps bolster the immune system.  Exercise reduces blood pressure and heart rate.  Exercise attenuates hunger.  Exercise moderates glucose, insulin, and serotonin levels.  Exercise helps maintain healthy skin and bone density.

Yes, I understand that proper nutrition is a part of this.  But, our physiology has been tuned over millions of years through feast times and famine times.  So, I'm betting that it can handle it, provided we do the maintenance exercise.

If 10 year old Sally or Johnny are fat, it's much more likely to be because they are sedentary than anything else.  So, send them out to build some permanent muscle mass, don't cut off their Oreos--even if they are the food of the debbil.  I assure you, it'll work.

←

[FabulousFoodBabe]

The mother who was interviewed mentioned that between working and raising a child on her own, both time and money were very tight.  I would imagine that putting together a healthy snack with some frozen veggies, etc would be time consuming and difficult for a single mother to prepare . . .

←

More time-consuming than opening a Little Debbie, sure, but it doesnt have to be very time consuming and it certainly does not HAVE to be very difficult. I feel for anyone who is so pressed for time that they can't steam some broccoli, pour a bowl of generic Cheerios or open a can of mixed fruit!

←

I wonder how depressed that woman was, that she couldn't do a simple thing that she knew in her heart was better for her kid. Makes me very sad. Doing a little something in the kitchen together probably made her feel like just one more demand on her time.

[Carrot Top]

Edited to remove.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Carrot Top (log)

[jsolomon]

Poverty can grind the soul right out of a person. Indeed, generally it tries to at every turn or step.

←

No, that's capitalism. Poverty is just a dysphemism for it.

[Carrot Top]

Edited to remove.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Carrot Top (log)