Obesity & Income
View Full Version : Obesity & Income
An interesting article that refers to a discussion we had
sometime recently. It seems that at some average level in
the U.S., it is more costly to eat healthy than unhealthy
and it seems somewhat easier to get more exercise if your
income is higher than lower. Obviously, we could all provide
anecdotal evidence of a poorer person eating more healthy
and getting more exercise than a specific wealthy person but
this doesn't preclude an interesting trend.
My own take is that eating healthy and running must be a
HIGH priority for it to be successful but it sounds like it
is a bit easier if you make more money up to a point.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-05-02-diet-
cover_x.htm
On a related topic, take a look at these CDC obesity maps that were just posted
to a cycling newsgroup I read:
http://bantransfats.com/obesitymap.htm
These show the US geographical distribution of obesity, and
even more frighteningly, show the obesity level increasing
dramatically for every year since 1985. Yipes! A picture is
worth a 1000 words.
TenKMan <Fred@fred.com> wrote:
> An interesting article that refers to a discussion we had
> sometime recently. It seems that at some average level in
> the U.S., it is more costly to eat healthy than unhealthy
> and it seems somewhat easier to get more exercise if your
> income is higher than lower.
i agree to some extent.
however, i've seen people in the supermarket buying soda and
frozen dinner with foodstamps. so, it's also the
effort/attitude.
2 liters of soda for $1 when you can get tap water for
free?! if you're afraid of water-borne diseases, buy some
water for $0.25 for 3.78 liters (a gallon).
a frozen dinner has probably about 400-700 calories and
costs ~$2. if you were to put that same money into buying a
can of beans and a bag of rice, you'll get more calories for
your buck. a loaf of bread has about 1000-1500 calories for
the same price.
on the other hand, if you were to eat healthy as in organic
foods, i agree it becomes quite expensive. e.g., one organic
banana - $0.28. compare to a whole pound of "normal" (read
GM) bananas for $0.40.
> My own take is that eating healthy and running must be a
> HIGH priority for it to be successful but it sounds like
> it is a bit easier if you make more money up to a point.
i agree. it should be a high priority. but some aren't
always in a position to do so, and some aren't willing to do
so. there could be more effort on an individual basis.
jobs
In article <7rmdnWsChOcFtAXdRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"TenKMan" <Fred@Fred.com> wrote:
> An interesting article that refers to a discussion we had
> sometime recently. It seems that at some average level in
> the U.S., it is more costly to eat healthy than unhealthy
> and it seems somewhat easier to get more exercise if your
> income is higher than lower. Obviously, we could all
> provide anecdotal evidence of a poorer person eating more
> healthy and getting more exercise than a specific wealthy
> person but this doesn't preclude an interesting trend.
>
> My own take is that eating healthy and running must be a
> HIGH priority for it to be successful but it sounds like
> it is a bit easier if you make more money up to a point.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-05-02-diet-
> cover_x.htm
>
>
>
well if by healthy you mean all organic foods and only the
best of everything, then sure, money will make a
difference. then again, i have another way of looking at
this, and it is totally from my personal experiences over
the past couple of years. my employment (and thereby my
financial) situation has not been great lately. without
going into the details of THAT, i'll just say that i have
found that by cutting out virtually all "sin" foods (junk
food and snacks, soft drinks, alcohol <sob!>), i have been
able to eat more cheaply than ever AND healthier than when
i had greater income.
having said that, knowledge is definitely power in this
department. i've been edging my way toward a vegetarian diet
for several years now, and have done lots of reading and
consulting with people. Most of the time I am eating as a
vegetarian would (with just a little dairy), though now and
then, i go for chicken or fish if it's handy. no beef
though. when times are tough i don't buy meat. THAT alone
will save you loads of money on your grocery bill. i still
get the nutrients, but from other sources.
i eat lots of pasta, some rice and potatoes, lots of frozen
vegetables - which is a far cheaper method than fresh from
the market, tofu and soy beverage, nuts, oatmeal (dirt
cheap!), whole grain bread, juices, homemade soups, some
fruit.... and i take a supplement now and then to make sure
i'm covering all of the bases.
lower income doesn't have to mean a crappy diet, but hey,
studies have shown that lower income folks generally
don't have the dietary knowledge, AND do not choose a
healthy lifestyle (having grown up with poor eating and
fitness habits).
just my one cent for the day :)
Cam
(oh, and as long as the shoes hold out, i can still run...
and i can bike for free, and even swimming at an indoor
pool in winter is very cheap. many cities have programs to
assist low income families with enjoying community services
like that)
In article <7rmdnWsChOcFtAXdRVn-hA@comcast.com>, TenKMan wrote:
>
> An interesting article that refers to a discussion we had
> sometime recently. It seems that at some average level in
> the U.S., it is more costly to eat healthy than unhealthy
> and it seems somewhat easier to get more exercise if your
> income is higher than lower. Obviously, we could all
> provide anecdotal evidence of a poorer person eating more
> healthy and getting more exercise than a specific wealthy
> person but this doesn't preclude an interesting trend.
>
> My own take is that eating healthy and running must be a
> HIGH priority for it to be successful but it sounds like
> it is a bit easier if you make more money up to a point.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-05-02-diet-
> cover_x.htm
Wah wah wah wah god quality meat is often expensive wah wah
wah wah wah ...
I don't eat meat myself, but surely one could simply
replace *quantity* meat with *quality* meat. That would in
itself both eliminate a lot of junk and improve overall
quality of food.
Either that or just suck it up and eat canned tuna. What a
pack of wimps.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
>My own take is that eating healthy and running must be a
>HIGH priority for it to be successful but it sounds like it
>is a bit easier if you make more money up to a point.
geez, no ****. you needed an article to tell you this?
- k i t z - "winners forget they're in a race. they just
love to run." -simon wilder
http://spinning_plates.tripod.com (http://spinning_plates.tripod.com/)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kitznegari
"TenKMan" <Fred@Fred.com> wrote in message
news:7rmdnWsChOcFtAXdRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> An interesting article that refers to a discussion we had
> sometime recently. It seems that at some average level in
> the U.S., it is more costly to eat healthy than unhealthy
> and it seems somewhat easier to get more exercise if your
> income is higher than lower. Obviously, we could all
> provide anecdotal evidence of a poorer person eating more
> healthy and getting more exercise than a specific wealthy
> person but this doesn't preclude an interesting trend.
>
> My own take is that eating healthy and running must be a
> HIGH priority for it to be successful but it sounds like
> it is a bit easier if you make more money up to a point.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-05-02-diet-
> cover_x.htm
>
>
>
Sorry, but I have little sympathy for this whiner
complaining. Eating less and exercising more is pretty
cheap. I wondered when people would realize the cost of
Atkins in tangible means.
I run into Fortune 500 execs regularly (as part of a
consulting gig I do from time to time) who have plenty of
income. However, time is an issue for them although they
still know they could make the time to exercise. Being more
weathly these days often means less "free time".
I think it is a false correlation. Statistically this would
be called the fallacy of the hidden variable. The missing
variable is ethnicity. The two largest minority groups in
the US have lower income and unhealthful eating habits.
I wonder about the accuracy of the BMI. There must be a standard dev to the
accuracy. When I was running 40-50 miles a week, at a pace of about 6:45, I
weighed 184 pounds at 6'0". According to the BMI, I was pushing overweight.
Odd that an "overwieght" man could run 19.6 miles at a 7:17 pace.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
"TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040504195307.21796.00000758@mb-
m15.aol.com...
> On a related topic, take a look at these CDC obesity maps
> that were just
posted
> to a cycling newsgroup I read:
>
> http://bantransfats.com/obesitymap.htm
>
> These show the US geographical distribution of obesity,
> and even more frighteningly, show the obesity level
> increasing dramatically for every
year
> since 1985. Yipes! A picture is worth a 1000 words.
"TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040504195307.21796.00000758@mb-m15.aol.com...
> On a related topic, take a look at these CDC obesity
> maps that
were just posted
> to a cycling newsgroup I read:
>
> http://bantransfats.com/obesitymap.htm
>
> These show the US geographical distribution of obesity,
> and even
more
> frighteningly, show the obesity level increasing
> dramatically for
every year
> since 1985. Yipes! A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I'm sorry they did not show the equally nasty trend in
type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes will be out next health
epidemic to make AIDS and heart disease look like an
infrequent headache.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com
(remove the NOBS)
You have to remember the time factor. Some of these people
are buying this food for convenience. If a family has three
kids at home and the parents work long hours, they are not
going to be motivated to cook a healthy meal when it is far
easier to just throw some TV dinners in the oven.
<jobin@REMOVE-DEEZ-WORDS.hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message
news:c79bfh$i9b$1@glue.ucr.edu...
> TenKMan <Fred@fred.com> wrote:
> > An interesting article that refers to a discussion we
> > had sometime recently. It seems that at some average
> > level in the U.S., it is more costly to eat healthy than
> > unhealthy and it seems somewhat easier to get more
> > exercise if your income is higher than lower.
>
> i agree to some extent.
>
> however, i've seen people in the supermarket buying soda
> and frozen dinner with foodstamps. so, it's also the
> effort/attitude.
>
> 2 liters of soda for $1 when you can get tap water for
> free?! if you're afraid of water-borne diseases, buy some
> water for $0.25 for 3.78 liters (a gallon).
>
> a frozen dinner has probably about 400-700 calories and
> costs ~$2. if you were to put that same money into buying
> a can of beans and a bag of rice, you'll get more calories
> for your buck. a loaf of bread has about 1000-1500
> calories for the same price.
>
> on the other hand, if you were to eat healthy as in
> organic foods, i agree it becomes quite expensive. e.g.,
> one organic banana - $0.28. compare to a whole pound of
> "normal" (read GM) bananas for $0.40.
>
> > My own take is that eating healthy and running must be a
> > HIGH priority for it to be successful but it sounds like
> > it is a bit easier if you make more money up to a point.
>
> i agree. it should be a high priority. but some aren't
> always in a position to do so, and some aren't willing to
> do so. there could be more effort on an individual basis.
>
> jobs
"rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7422d8e.0405051243.11305d97@posting.google.com...
> I think it is a false correlation. Statistically this
> would be called
the
> fallacy of the hidden variable. The missing variable is
> ethnicity. The two largest minority groups in the US have
> lower income and unhealthful eating habits.
When I read the actual study, I thought they controlled for
ethnicity,
i.e. lower income whites were compared to higher income
whites ect.
On 04 May 2004 23:53:07 GMT, topcounsel@aol.com (TopCounsel) wrote:
>On a related topic, take a look at these CDC obesity maps
>that were just posted to a cycling newsgroup I read:
>
>http://bantransfats.com/obesitymap.htm
>
>These show the US geographical distribution of obesity, and
>even more frighteningly, show the obesity level increasing
>dramatically for every year since 1985. Yipes! A picture is
>worth a 1000 words.
An interesting question would be, to try and explain
Colorado?
Altitude? Average Age? Lotsa wiry/skinny rancher types?
Lotsa Military? Lotsa Outdoor types (Skiers, Mountain
bikers, etc)
I read once that Colorado has a high per-capita number of
folks with scuba licenses. With no nearby oceans, try to
figure that one out ?
Once again... the BMI is meant as a "gross" assessment
tool. If someone falls into the unhealthy range, then
further information should be gathered like muscle mass and
activity level.
There is a strong correlation between BMI and all cause
mortality.
"Ham String" <ham@spam-blam> wrote in message news:XNCdnQDvjsFlrQXdRVn-
jw@adelphia.com...
> I wonder about the accuracy of the BMI. There must be a
> standard dev to
the
> accuracy. When I was running 40-50 miles a week, at a pace
> of about 6:45,
I
> weighed 184 pounds at 6'0". According to the BMI, I
> was pushing
overweight.
> Odd that an "overwieght" man could run 19.6 miles at a
> 7:17 pace.
>
> hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>
> "TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040504195307.21796.00000758@mb-
> m15.aol.com...
> > On a related topic, take a look at these CDC obesity
> > maps that were just
> posted
> > to a cycling newsgroup I read:
> >
> > http://bantransfats.com/obesitymap.htm
> >
> > These show the US geographical distribution of obesity,
> > and even more frighteningly, show the obesity level
> > increasing dramatically for every
> year
> > since 1985. Yipes! A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I would guess BMI is an accurate assessment tool for at
least 75% of the population. People who are at the extreme
end, either really fit or really fat, won't be properly
assessed by it.
"Ham String" <ham@spam-blam> wrote in message news:XNCdnQDvjsFlrQXdRVn-
jw@adelphia.com...
> I wonder about the accuracy of the BMI. There must be a
> standard dev to
the
> accuracy. When I was running 40-50 miles a week, at a pace
> of about 6:45,
I
> weighed 184 pounds at 6'0". According to the BMI, I
> was pushing
overweight.
> Odd that an "overwieght" man could run 19.6 miles at a
> 7:17 pace.
>
> hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>
> "TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040504195307.21796.00000758@mb-
> m15.aol.com...
> > On a related topic, take a look at these CDC obesity
> > maps that were just
> posted
> > to a cycling newsgroup I read:
> >
> > http://bantransfats.com/obesitymap.htm
> >
> > These show the US geographical distribution of obesity,
> > and even more frighteningly, show the obesity level
> > increasing dramatically for every
> year
> > since 1985. Yipes! A picture is worth a 1000 words.
In article <XNCdnQDvjsFlrQXdRVn-jw@adelphia.com>, Ham String wrote:
> I wonder about the accuracy of the BMI.
What are you babbling about ? BMI is "accurate". It
accurately measures how heavy you are for your height. It
may or may not predict other things (like fatness,
mortality, etc)
> There must be a standard dev to the accuracy. When I was
> running 40-50 miles a week, at a pace of about 6:45, I
> weighed 184 pounds at 6'0". According to the BMI, I was
> pushing overweight.
Actually, you'd be in the high end of the normal range.
But again, I'm not sure what you mean by "according to the
BMI".
> Odd that an "overwieght" man could run 19.6 miles at a
> 7:17 pace.
I know some fairly tubby people who can run pretty well. For
example, out of condition runners are still reasonably fast,
even after putting on fat.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Joe <joeblow632@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You have to remember the time factor. Some of these
> people are buying this food for convenience. If a family
> has three kids at home and the parents work long hours,
> they are not going to be motivated to cook a healthy meal
> when it is far easier to just throw some TV dinners in
> the oven.
yes, that's why i said some aren't in a position to do so
(i.e., to try to eat healthy.)
jobs
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<PZWlc.37394$mX.12957123@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> I'm sorry they did not show the equally nasty trend in
> type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes will be out next health epidemic
> to make AIDS and heart disease look like an infrequent
> headache.
Professor Lars Rydén of Karolinska institutet in Stockholm
has just published the results of a large European study:
two thirds of coronary disease patients either have an un-
diagnosed type 2 diabetes or a pre-diabetic abnormal glucose
tolerance.
Anders
Joe Bloggs <JBloggs@acme.com> wrote in message news:<24lj905jlaoqedqrq7h9vvm9dt5i5kvvue@4ax.com>...
> On 04 May 2004 23:53:07 GMT, topcounsel@aol.com
> (TopCounsel) wrote:
>
> >On a related topic, take a look at these CDC obesity maps
> >that were just posted to a cycling newsgroup I read:
> >
> >http://bantransfats.com/obesitymap.htm
> >
> >These show the US geographical distribution of obesity,
> >and even more frighteningly, show the obesity level
> >increasing dramatically for every year since 1985. Yipes!
> >A picture is worth a 1000 words.
>
> An interesting question would be, to try and explain
> Colorado?
>
> Altitude?
not sure...guess I really never thought about this...
> Average Age?
As a native, I have to say that average age is likely a huge
factor in Colorado.
There is a shirt in the Breckenridge area that says that the
average age in that county is 27. I believe just about half
of Colorado's population is under the age of 30.
You're young and outdoorsy, so you move to Colorado so that
you can ski/board in the winter and river guide/work as a
camp counselor/work at the resorts in the summer. This
means you live a fairly active lifestyle and you are poor.
Being poor you likely are not going to be able to
"overeat". However, you live in an area that caters to
active/fit people so the food in the grocery stores is also
decently healthy.
It's once folks start having kids that the ski bum/river rat
lifestyle begins to seem less appealing.
Colorado also has one of the highest rates of divorced
individuals. There's a quote that I've heard on the r.s.t.
board about how if you are a triathlete you are either
married to another triathlete, single or about to become
single. I think the high divorce rate may allow middle aged
folks that would usually be hauling their kids to soccer
games to have at least every other weekend to free.
> Lotsa wiry/skinny rancher types?
not as many as you would think...
> Lotsa Military?
some...but not tons...
> Lotsa Outdoor types (Skiers, Mountain bikers, etc)
yes...Boulder is a huge triathlon town. Races up there are
large and they fill up quickly.
> I read once that Colorado has a high per-capita number of
> folks with scuba licenses. With no nearby oceans, try to
> figure that one out ?
Colorado has lots of folks with disposable income. Because
there are no oceans nearby, it's a sign of priviledge and
wealth to be able to be scuba licensed. Lots of pools offer
the courses around here as well.
Finally, many folks in Colorado are not from Colorado
initially. They may have recieved certification long before
they came here.
I would have to add climate to the list. Colorado has a very
temperate climate...Denver has as much sunshine as Miami
with none of the humidity. This makes getting out and being
active much easier (requires less gear or mental fortitude).
And Colorado offers just as many winter activities and
summer activities.
By comparison, when I lived in the middle of Illinois, you
could go outside for a run comfortably with no special gear
from September until Halloween and from Saint Patty's Day
until the end of May. The rest of the time it was too windy,
too icy (grrrrrr ice), too hot or too humid to be really
comfortable. You can certainly adapt but it wasn't a
pleasure to be outside.
In article <vI6mc.11175$0K.2264@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Joe wrote:
> I would guess BMI is an accurate assessment tool for at
> least 75% of the population. People who are at the extreme
> end, either really fit or really fat, won't be properly
> assessed by it.
One problem with it as an assesment tool is that there are
some systematic errors in it. For example, the fatness<->BMI
correspondence is different in different ethnic groups.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
