I'd argue the opposite (there's a reason people call places like Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck"), but cost misses the problem entirely. The truth is, many Americans in urban areas lack access to healthy foods. Look up food deserts.
I'm not suggesting that fruit isn't a more efficient way of acquiring nutrition in your body, I'm simply saying that any excess of sugar, no matter how beneficial the other gains might be, will produce weight gain.
I'd argue the opposite (there's a reason people call places like Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck"), but cost misses the problem entirely. The truth is, many Americans in urban areas lack access to healthy foods. Look up food deserts.
Lack of access doesn't change the fact that for the average person eating healthy is as economical or better then not.
Cheryl and I have been planning out our meals a couple weeks in advance. We can feed our Family of three three healthy meals a day with two smaller (ex: fruit and cheese) meals a day for two weeks on ~$300. ~$2.38 per meal per person, $21.42 /day. If we were to plan on a day to day basis (even if only half the days were fast food) that would be closer to $7* per person per meal or $63 /day, $882 for two weeks.
*$7 is approximate "Value Meal" cost or $21 in groceries for 3 people, 1 meal.
Even if someone had to spend $50 on gas to drive an hour both ways to get to a healthier grocery store, they would still be up over $400! I'm even surprising myself with these numbers.
I would conciser someone who; is in a rural area where Grocery stores have closed, doesn't have a car, doesn't have access to public transit, doesn't have a bike/friend an extreme and not the average.
I would conciser someone who; is in a rural area where Grocery stores have closed, doesn't have a car, doesn't have access to public transit, doesn't have a bike/friend an extreme and not the average.
-Bobby
I'm much more rural than I used to be a year ago, and my access to the deals to be found at rural farmer's markets completely invalidates this.
Also, who doesn't have a car in a rural setting? I'm assuming we're not talking about the Amish here.
Also, who doesn't have a car in a rural setting? I'm assuming we're not talking about the Amish here.
Lack of car and lack of public transportation applies to people in urban areas, e.g., Detroit wherein there are no grocery stores, isolated farmers markets, no public transportation and few are willing or able to drive to the suburbs to get groceries.
Lack of car and lack of public transportation applies to people in urban areas, e.g., Detroit wherein there are no grocery stores, isolated farmers markets, no public transportation and few are willing or able to drive to the suburbs to get groceries.
I'd consider Detroit more of 'urban wasteland' than 'urban' - working in downtown Chicago, I'd walk from the train station to my office and pass through 2 of the largest farmer's markets on the way there.
What we're talking about here is the cost of living in an economically eviscerated area and the gaps that occur when basic consumer infrastructure breaks down. In that case, yes, it would be difficult to many things that are normally available.
However... 3 weeks in India and I've seen that it's possible to eat well in areas with no infrastructure. If you've got dirt, you've got a garden. And if you can have a garden, the food from there will save you more than the difference of 100% shopping healthy vs 100% shopping unhealthy.
This doesn't have to be mandatory or for people with low income either. If you don't feel like paying for it, plan ahead and grow it. Long weekend ahead, I'm planning on increasing the size of my potted garden (rental property with no grass) for this very reason. I just don't feel like paying for the food, and rain and sun is free.
What we're talking about here is the cost of living in an economically eviscerated area and the gaps that occur when basic consumer infrastructure breaks down. In that case, yes, it would be difficult to many things that are normally available.
Right, and this is what the discussion on food access is about. For most, unhealthy eating decisions are a choice. Regardless of if better food costs more or less, they have the extraneous income to afford something better, they simply value other things first. A nicer car, cable TV, internet, or they'd rather not invest the time into cooking their food.
Food access is an issue that targets low-income individuals, who are likely to live in 'eviscerated areas,' are likely not to own vehicles, and are also likely to have an education void of basic nutrition information. So saying, "it costs just as much," doesn't matter; by economic and geographic circumstance they can't make that decision for themselves.
Back to the point, eating better is subjective.
At your local store, chicken may cost as much as Stoffer's Pizza or ice cream, but where does that chicken come from? Cargill, Tyson? What's put into it, how was it treated, how far did it travel to get to your supermarket?
To me, eating better is local, free-range, organic, hormone free, and grass fed (if beef). For vegetables and fruit, local, in-season, and pesticide free. The price of that, is without argument, significantly more.
A gallon of Country Fresh milk costs maybe $2.19 at your gas station. Calder Dairy milk costs nearly $8.50 a gallon, Gurnsey milk is $5.19 a gallon. A bag of 12 chicken breasts at Wal-Mart costs $7.50. Five certified organic Amish chicken breasts would run you about $9.30.
So eating better, depending on your definition, can be cheap or expensive.
I should've clarified, excess of sugar results in increased body fat % - which I mistakingly attributed to "weight gain".
You're right, you can technically not gain weight if you're eating within your caloric needs - but you're sure to lose muscle if you're consuming mostly fat/carb-based calories(most sugar-rich foods have some of both, especially where HFCS is concerned).
This is to notify you all that since I work with technology, I can now dictate how the term technology is used.
- Carbohydrates (the following are nicknamed "Sugars")
-- Monosaccharides (nickname: simple sugars)
--- glucose (nickname: dextrose, grape sugar, blood sugar. Used in photosynthesis, general cell energy/respiration)
--- fructose (nickname: fruit sugar)
--- galactose (nickname: beet sugar)
--- xylose (nickname: wood sugar)
--- ribose (this is the sugar that RNA is built upon)
-- Disaccharides (two monosaccharides)
--- sucrose (nickname: table sugar)
--- lactose (nickname: milk sugar)
-- Oligosaccharides (2-10 monosaccharides)
--- Fructo-oligosaccharides (chains of fructose found in vegetable sugars, undigested quantities feed 'good bacteria' in humans for a healthy gut)
--- Mannan Oligosaccharides (derived from the walls of a specific strain of yeast, used for feeding the 'good bacteria' in animals and maintaining a healthy gut)
It is a 76% to 24% mixture of glucose & fructose to water. Simply, it is indeed not sugar, but sugar water in a highly viscous concentration whose glucose and fructose have been derived from the grain of Zea mays.
Fun fact: I've personally manufactured hundreds of tons of the different glucose-fructose combinations of HFCS, working summers at a sugar transloading and storage facility in high school and undergrad. Nasty stuff. It used to eat all the rubber off a set of workboots in 3 months.
Fun fact: I've personally manufactured hundreds of tons of the different glucose-fructose combinations of HFCS, working summers at a sugar transloading and storage facility in high school and undergrad. Nasty stuff. It used to eat all the rubber off a set of workboots in 3 months.
On that note, the older I get the more and more people I know who really do have hiv/aids, diabetes, and are dying of cancer. This thread just made me sad, but humor will protect me.
Yeah, the unrelated HIV and cancer thing was a buzzkill. those poor folks, its not a joke to know you're going to die.
However unlikely it is, i still like to believe diabetes is reversable. Frustrating to watch the people i know with it drink 50x my soda intake, but with "diet" soda. Its like watching a gambling addict spend their food money on the lottery.
Comments
I'd argue the opposite (there's a reason people call places like Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck"), but cost misses the problem entirely. The truth is, many Americans in urban areas lack access to healthy foods. Look up food deserts.
Only an excess of calories produces weight gain.
Lack of access doesn't change the fact that for the average person eating healthy is as economical or better then not.
Cheryl and I have been planning out our meals a couple weeks in advance. We can feed our Family of three three healthy meals a day with two smaller (ex: fruit and cheese) meals a day for two weeks on ~$300. ~$2.38 per meal per person, $21.42 /day. If we were to plan on a day to day basis (even if only half the days were fast food) that would be closer to $7* per person per meal or $63 /day, $882 for two weeks.
*$7 is approximate "Value Meal" cost or $21 in groceries for 3 people, 1 meal.
Even if someone had to spend $50 on gas to drive an hour both ways to get to a healthier grocery store, they would still be up over $400! I'm even surprising myself with these numbers.
-Bobby
I would conciser someone who; is in a rural area where Grocery stores have closed, doesn't have a car, doesn't have access to public transit, doesn't have a bike/friend an extreme and not the average.
-Bobby
I'm much more rural than I used to be a year ago, and my access to the deals to be found at rural farmer's markets completely invalidates this.
Also, who doesn't have a car in a rural setting? I'm assuming we're not talking about the Amish here.
Lack of car and lack of public transportation applies to people in urban areas, e.g., Detroit wherein there are no grocery stores, isolated farmers markets, no public transportation and few are willing or able to drive to the suburbs to get groceries.
I'd consider Detroit more of 'urban wasteland' than 'urban' - working in downtown Chicago, I'd walk from the train station to my office and pass through 2 of the largest farmer's markets on the way there.
What we're talking about here is the cost of living in an economically eviscerated area and the gaps that occur when basic consumer infrastructure breaks down. In that case, yes, it would be difficult to many things that are normally available.
However... 3 weeks in India and I've seen that it's possible to eat well in areas with no infrastructure. If you've got dirt, you've got a garden. And if you can have a garden, the food from there will save you more than the difference of 100% shopping healthy vs 100% shopping unhealthy.
This doesn't have to be mandatory or for people with low income either. If you don't feel like paying for it, plan ahead and grow it. Long weekend ahead, I'm planning on increasing the size of my potted garden (rental property with no grass) for this very reason. I just don't feel like paying for the food, and rain and sun is free.
Right, and this is what the discussion on food access is about. For most, unhealthy eating decisions are a choice. Regardless of if better food costs more or less, they have the extraneous income to afford something better, they simply value other things first. A nicer car, cable TV, internet, or they'd rather not invest the time into cooking their food.
Food access is an issue that targets low-income individuals, who are likely to live in 'eviscerated areas,' are likely not to own vehicles, and are also likely to have an education void of basic nutrition information. So saying, "it costs just as much," doesn't matter; by economic and geographic circumstance they can't make that decision for themselves.
Back to the point, eating better is subjective.
At your local store, chicken may cost as much as Stoffer's Pizza or ice cream, but where does that chicken come from? Cargill, Tyson? What's put into it, how was it treated, how far did it travel to get to your supermarket?
To me, eating better is local, free-range, organic, hormone free, and grass fed (if beef). For vegetables and fruit, local, in-season, and pesticide free. The price of that, is without argument, significantly more.
A gallon of Country Fresh milk costs maybe $2.19 at your gas station. Calder Dairy milk costs nearly $8.50 a gallon, Gurnsey milk is $5.19 a gallon. A bag of 12 chicken breasts at Wal-Mart costs $7.50. Five certified organic Amish chicken breasts would run you about $9.30.
So eating better, depending on your definition, can be cheap or expensive.
I should've clarified, excess of sugar results in increased body fat % - which I mistakingly attributed to "weight gain".
You're right, you can technically not gain weight if you're eating within your caloric needs - but you're sure to lose muscle if you're consuming mostly fat/carb-based calories(most sugar-rich foods have some of both, especially where HFCS is concerned).
The sugar industry is suing.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44509849
It's somewhat confusing, though, since corn sugar can also mean dextrose. Maybe the FDA will reject it for that reason.
lol.
This is to notify you all that since I work with technology, I can now dictate how the term technology is used.
- Carbohydrates (the following are nicknamed "Sugars")
-- Monosaccharides (nickname: simple sugars)
--- glucose (nickname: dextrose, grape sugar, blood sugar. Used in photosynthesis, general cell energy/respiration)
--- fructose (nickname: fruit sugar)
--- galactose (nickname: beet sugar)
--- xylose (nickname: wood sugar)
--- ribose (this is the sugar that RNA is built upon)
-- Disaccharides (two monosaccharides)
--- sucrose (nickname: table sugar)
--- lactose (nickname: milk sugar)
-- Oligosaccharides (2-10 monosaccharides)
--- Fructo-oligosaccharides (chains of fructose found in vegetable sugars, undigested quantities feed 'good bacteria' in humans for a healthy gut)
--- Mannan Oligosaccharides (derived from the walls of a specific strain of yeast, used for feeding the 'good bacteria' in animals and maintaining a healthy gut)
via Wikipedia
It is a 76% to 24% mixture of glucose & fructose to water. Simply, it is indeed not sugar, but sugar water in a highly viscous concentration whose glucose and fructose have been derived from the grain of Zea mays.
Fun fact: I've personally manufactured hundreds of tons of the different glucose-fructose combinations of HFCS, working summers at a sugar transloading and storage facility in high school and undergrad. Nasty stuff. It used to eat all the rubber off a set of workboots in 3 months.
THANK YOU FOR KILLING AMERICA.
All factual information:
http://www.sweetsurprise.com/
Everything you guys say is slander.
Hey, *I* don't have the diabetes!
Fortunately for the corn lobby, facts don't have to be true.
But you do have the cancer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATSqGeKA1OI
On that note, the older I get the more and more people I know who really do have hiv/aids, diabetes, and are dying of cancer. This thread just made me sad, but humor will protect me.
However unlikely it is, i still like to believe diabetes is reversable. Frustrating to watch the people i know with it drink 50x my soda intake, but with "diet" soda. Its like watching a gambling addict spend their food money on the lottery.
Mkay, so... /thread then? *unsub*