The mental model most Americans use for dealing with poverty is Dickens-with-a-hotplate. Thus the raging anger triggered by the statement--which has rich supporting evidence from places like the Census Bureau and the USDA--that however many and varied the needs of the poor may be, food is not among them. If you mentally equate poverty with hunger, then denying the hunger means denying the poverty.
But the poor don't need to be hungry to be poor. There is little to no systematic evidence that poverty-linked undernutrition--malnutrition caused by too little food intake--is an actual problem in America. "Food insecurity" numbers batted around by the FDA do not mean that people actually went hungry; they mean that people worried about going hungry, or changed their diet--usually by altering the composition of the diet, not by forgoing food--to avoid going hungry. But of actual sustained hunger, there is no evidence.
There is, on the other hand, a lot of evidence of obesity among the poor; their obesity rate is estimated at 36%, and the obesity rate among poor children seems to be about twice the rate among non-poor children. The poor people are eating more calories than they need. Yet we propose to stimulate the economy by giving the poor money that can only be spent on more food.
What about the argument that the poor are forced into eating high-calorie diets by the expense of produce and whole grains? This is silly on many counts:
1. It assumes what it sets out to prove: holds the caloric budget of the poor constant, and then proves that you have to spend more to get the same number of calories from whole grains and fruit than you currently do from potato chips. Fully one third of the poor are consuming too many calories; there is nothing in this to indicate that they could not afford a healthier diet if they cut back on the number of calories they consumed, and used the money saved therefrom to upgrade the quality of their food. If you want to know whether the poor can eat a healthy diet, you hold their budget constant, and see whether they could afford to eat fewer, higher quality calories. The public health researchers I've spoken to seem to universally agree that they could.2. The poor are getting fatter, fast. High-quality foods are not getting more expensive, the incomes of the poor are not going down, and grocery stores, even in urban areas, are only improving.
3. This is generally "proven" by the observation that the poor are fat; therefore, they must be eating too many empty calories. But the causal link is more likely to run the other way; there is good evidence that obesity depresses your earning potential. This is particularly true because obese people are disproportionately likely to end up on disability: excess weight is hard on he knees and back.
4. This partakes of a mental model of obesity that casts it as a matter of simply making good choices from the available basket. Choose the salad, you stay thin; choose the steak, you get fat. That model is popularized by diet books and nutritionists, who are in the business of telling you what choices to make. The logical conclusion is that the reason the poor are obese is that they are either making bad choices, or their basket of choices is too restricted to allow them to choose low-calorie foods.
This model is being upended by research on appetite and metabolism. People's bodies have a set point that they very much want to maintain; if you push their bodies below the set point, their appetite will increase until it is nearly unbearable. A few superhuman people can withstand it, but hunger is an evolutionary response of the same order as pain: unless you're superhuman, you cannot overcome it with willpower.
There is no evidence whatsoever that giving poor people food stamps will cause them to reduce their calorie consumption. There is no evidence that the poor need more food.
Saying that the poor don't need more food is not the same thing as saying that the poor aren't poor, or that they live joyous lives of material satiety. Being poor is awful for a score of reasons that I don't think I have to go into--and if you doubt it, I invite you to rent an apartment in Anacostia or East New York for a month, and attempt to live on the average welfare grant.
But to the extent that you think we have an obligation to help the poor with their problems, and that those problems can be fixed by giving them money to buy things, then we should give them money to buy things. Attaching strings to the money both blunts the fiscal stimulus, and degrades the dignity of adult citizens who are presumptively capable of deciding whether they would like to spend their money on a bag of apples or a pair of shoes.
Meanwhile, to those who had a procedural complaint with my post--saying that we should use food stamps because we already have the EBT cards--we already have several rich networks for distributing cash to the poor. For the working poor, we have the EITC, which is conveniently about to be distributed right now; we could just tack on $500 to each check. And for the non-working poor who qualify for food stamps, we have the disability insurance and welfare systems, which are giving them money right now. Food stamps are simply an inferior alternative to these options on all dimensions--unless you happen to be a food processor or a farmer.
Megan, how dare you advocate that poor people be sent EITC benefits in exploding envelopes!! You probably had a comfortable childhood, provided by parents who worked for a specialty ordnance company!!!!
Your argument is interesting - you seem to use paternalism to justify not using paternalism. I'm not saying I disagree with the crux of your argument, because I don't - I think simple cash transfers much more effective. Yet you only seem to get to the real reason such transfers are better than food stamps towards the end of your post -
"But to the extent that you think we have an obligation to help the poor with their problems, and that those problems can be fixed by giving them money to buy things, then we should give them money to buy things. Attaching strings to the money both blunts the fiscal stimulus, and degrades the dignity of adult citizens who are presumptively capable of deciding whether they would like to spend their money on a bag of apples or a pair of shoes."
Your argument that the poor should not be given food stamps because they don't "need" more food seems inconsistent.
Also, I wonder what actual effect an increased supply of food stamps would have on food consumption? Wouldn't food consumption stay the same while freeing up disposable income for other purchases? I guess the question is, how income-elastic is food consumption? I'm guessing that it is fairly inelastic, giving validity to proponents of food stamps.
1. It assumes what it sets out to prove: holds the caloric budget of the poor constant, and then proves that you have to spend more to get the same number of calories from whole grains and fruit than you currently do from potato chips.
Good God, I can't imagine someone argued that with a straight face. One ounce of potato chips is about 100 Calories. One apple, of something like 6-8 ounces, is about 75 Calories. Four cups of collard greens is about 100 Calories.
One might almost wonder if they were using that method to be purposefully misleading.
Charlie (Colorado)
I can't believe you wrote that post with a straight face. Did you even read the rest of the paragraph you truncated in your quote? Nothing Megan writes in that paragraph states or suggests that she doesn't realize that chips have a greater calorie density than fresh fruit or vegetables. You have completely missed her point.
Like I said in the other thread, thanks so much for dropping this knowledge on us. I assure you that none of us in the policymaking community were ever at all aware of the theoretical advantages to cash over noncash transfers. I attribute our blindness to our overwhelming paternalistic desire to stuff poor people full of Cheetos.
I think we should also consider the point of the stimulus. It isn't really to increase consumption, it is to increase demand for labor. While food has the benefit of being domestically produced for the most part, it is not really that labor intensive. I believe in the US, 26 hours of labor at the agricultural level feeds someone for a year. There is more, as food is transported, packaged, prepared processed etc, but it isn't much.
While I like the idea of using EITC and SSI, because they are in place already, if the government decides to broaden stimulus to the middle class through existing avenues, one-time increases to tax credits for energy saving home improvements would be efficacious.
The construction industry is down. Much of the same labor pool utilized for building homes could be used for installing siding, insulation, efficient windows, heat-pumps furnaces etc.
Structuring it like this ensures that it will get spent, not saved. The spending would be overwhelmingly on domestic labor and products. It further directs the spending at people who would likely spend their cut of the profits again, since they have been in a slump.
A flaw in this is that it favors owners over renters. But many renters pay utilities, and landlords getting incentive to make improvements is helpful, though it is probably an unequal benefit.
And I could use a new furnace and replacement windows.
I assure you that none of us in the policymaking community were ever at all aware of the theoretical advantages to cash over noncash transfers.
Well. We peons in the non-policymaking community do apologize for daring to criticize you.
Will you jerks in the policymaking community give me my money back, like I do with my very unsatisfied customers?
none of us in the policymaking community
School board president of Hicksville, population 50, or are you uppy-graded to one of dem fancy supernintendo positions now? (I don't have me any roustabouts yet, so right now I'm just curious what the district is like, see...)
How about increasing Section 8 vouchers?
Focuses on the low income and non-working poor, helps them with a painful part of being poor in America, and might even soak up a tiny bit of the housing inventory.
Better than food stamps--there's no question that many of the poor could stand a housing upgrade. But still not preferable to cash.
And Bob, for a chap in the policy community, you seemed in the previous thread to be unaware of the existing mechanisms for cash transfers.
Also, what's with constant demonization of steak? I'm prety sure the "wrong dietetic choices" go along the lines of Twinkies and soda a lot more often. And I dare anyone to tell me that fillet mignon with grilled asparagus, wild mushrooms and a glass of beaujolais is not healthy... oh, we were actually talking about the poor? ;-)
I recommend, ALG, that you take a look through the "For Rent" section of your local daily some time and count the proportion of ads that say "No Section 8."
P.J. O'Rourke once pointed out the awful paradox of poverty:
You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money"
Unfortunately, you can't do it by giving them food, clothing, or housing either, though the feeding and clothing is at least a bit more biblical.
If none of the proposed solutions will end up helping their intended beneficiaries (Arthur Daniel Midlands excepted), nor will any of them be particularly useful in stimulating the economy (too little, too late, even if we discount the permanent income hypothesis), isn't the real lesson that the whole thing is a boondoggle?
Just politicians buying votes with our money.
(I'd say something cutting to bob, but the usual suspects have already torn him a new one)
For what it's worth, I think the set-point concept is already outdated. Research now seems to be pointing more toward a complex interaction between food composition (rather than caloric quantity) and hormones as driving the appetite.
I admit freely to being a poorly-read nonspecialist, so please correct me where wrong or provide citations on my behalf.
Rover,
I'm somewhat familiar with the research on obesity (I worked in a lab that researched Type I diabetes, but we kept up on Type 2, which is obesity related, as well)
My understanding is as follows: No one is really sure. For a while the "set point" hypothesis seemed to have all the evidence on its side, but it's pedestal has at least been shaken by more recent work dealing explicitly with signalling (Rather than the older genetic knockout models)
Look up "leptin",, "grelin" "mTOR" if you want an eyeful.
Charlie (Colorado) I can't believe you wrote that post with a straight face. Did you even read the rest of the paragraph you truncated in your quote? Nothing Megan writes in that paragraph states or suggests that she doesn't realize that chips have a greater calorie density than fresh fruit or vegetables. You have completely missed her point.
Um, Mixner, I realize it's not in the blogging tradition, but I was actually agreeing with Megan and expanding upon her point. If I had been disagreeing with Megan's point, it would be a complete non sequitur since I'm pointing out, in detail, that the notion that potato chips and healthier foods are comparable on a calorie-leveled basis is silly, just as she is.
Now, I'll grant that it's a touch difficult to tell the difference between Megan speaking in her proper voice and Megan summarizing or paraphrasing the arguments of others, but I blame the web designer for that.
Charlie,
I just entered a post acknowledging my error, and it got stuck in Megan's spam filter.
Mixner, I have been trying to lead the charge for a change in the spam filters. But the blogger seems unaware of the problem.
Anyway, on the topic at hand, the whole discussion seems confused to me because it is mixing two quite separate questions:
1) Are food stamps a good way to help the poor?
2) Is increasing food stamps a good tool for fiscal stimulus?
My own answer to 1 is no (at least tentatively). I would prefer the whole welfare system be replaced with a negative income tax.
My answer to 2 is also no, for reasons I have already explained on a previous thread.
But these questions are very different, and one could certainly answer yes to one and no to the other without a contradiction.
If you give money to poor people they will just spend it on crystal meth
Please remember, folks, food stamps were not invented to relieve poverty -- or hunger. They were a more convenient way to distribute varying types of food than was the old commodity program. The true political support (political muscle, if you will) comes from the agricultural community. Food stamps are welfare for farmers. The fact they help out poor people is a nice side benefit.
There is no evidence whatsoever that giving poor people food stamps will cause them to reduce their calorie consumption. There is no evidence that the poor need more food.
Megan, with all due respect, I think you are overlooking a very important and obvious point. Regardless of the specific food choices poor people make -- whether they choose to eat lots of fruits and vegetables or whether they choose to eat lots of carbs -- they still need to eat.
There are lots of skinny poor people as well as fat ones, but food insecurity is not determined by one's weight. It's determined by one's income, and whether that income (if there is one) is enough to cover ALL expenses essential to survival: in addition to food, that would include rent or mortgage, utility costs, clothing, and essential transportation costs. If paying the rent means going without food, or sharply reducing food spending, then one will be hungry and one's health will be in danger, regardless of body weight.
The biological reality, Megan, is that everyone -- every single human being on the planet -- needs to eat every single day -- preferably three times every single day. Being obese does not change that, Megan. Obese people cannot live off their fat. Whether they eat fruits and vegetables, or whether they eat mashed potatoes, they have to eat, or they will be hungry and experience adverse health consequences.
Give the poor the meat McArdle incessantly yammers about not eating.
Then give the poor all the food McArdle eats.
Two birds, one stone.
Kathy:
If paying the rent means going without food, or sharply reducing food spending, then one will be hungry and one's health will be in danger, regardless of body weight.
This isn't correct, except for children and in very severe cases. Hunger is healthful. Both chronic calorie restriction and intermittent fasting have been shown to extend life in lab animals and to improve metabolic parameters in humans.
The biological reality, Megan, is that everyone -- every single human being on the planet -- needs to eat every single day -- preferably three times every single day.
Also incorrect. People don't need to eat every day--as I pointed out above, there's evidence that going a day without food from time to time (intermittent fasting) is actually beneficial. Nor is it clear that three meals per day is better than two or one. People need to eat, but not as much or as often as we generally prefer to.
People don't need to eat every day
Okay, you first, Brian.
Uh, Kathy, I'd like to draw your attention to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You cannot be consistently hungry for any length of time and be obese. Fat person necessarily implies someone who is obtaining more calories than their body consumes at a lighter weight. There is lots of controversy and puzzlement over how exactly it's regulated, but there simply is no question, none, not a bit. Dead parrot.
It is not possible, it can't be done, it's as impossible having a car that makes more fuel than it consumes --- and for exactly the same reason.
Mixner:
I just entered a post acknowledging my error, and it got stuck in Megan's spam filter.
Taken for the deed, thanks.
You cannot be consistently hungry for any length of time and be obese. Fat person necessarily implies someone who is obtaining more calories than their body consumes at a lighter weight.
Yes you can, and no it doesn't. You are clearly unaware of the latest research, which shows that fat people have to eat significantly less than thin people in order to lose weight.
There are countless fat people who have spent their entire adult lives trying to lose weight -- and basically being hungry almost all of the time -- and never being able to keep the weight off, if they can even get it off in the first place. My best friend in college was one of them. The only time I ever saw her not fat was when she literally stopped eating, except for Melba toast and tea. And yes, she was hungry.
You cannot be consistently hungry for any length of time and be obese. Fat person necessarily implies someone who is obtaining more calories than their body consumes at a lighter weight.
Yes you can, and no it doesn't. You are clearly unaware of the latest research, which shows that fat people have to eat significantly less than thin people in order to lose weight. Put another way, these studies have shown that fat people stay fat even when they eat the same kind and amount of food that thin people eat. It's simply not true that fat people are fat (in general) because they can't stop stuffing food into their mouths.
There are countless fat people who have spent their entire adult lives trying to lose weight -- and basically being hungry almost all of the time -- and never being able to keep the weight off, if they can even get it off in the first place. My best friend in college was one of them. The only time I ever saw her not fat was when she literally stopped eating, except for Melba toast and tea. And yes, she was hungry.
Sorry for the dupe post. I thought the first one hadn't published.
Okay, you first, Brian.
I assume you mean Brandon, and while I'm certainly not the first, I do abstain from food regularly for periods of 20-36 hours. As I said, hunger is healthful.
Remember a mere hundred years ago, the upper class was fat and happy.
http://jcdurbant.blog.lemonde.fr/files/robberbarons_2.thumbnail.jpg
and the working class were thin
http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/PamMack/lec122sts/child.jpg
Well, we reverse all that and people are still bitching about it. Can't make people happy can we.
Living in one of Iowa's poorer, rural counties, I encounter the "plight" of our lowest class daily. In our grocery lines, I wait as they pay for their high-carb potato chips, countless 2-liters of regular Coke or Pepsi, frozen pizza, frozen fries, Little Debbie Snack Cakes, $5-per-box Captain Crunch (not on sale but who cares when you're not paying for it), and other junk food on their Iowa foodstamp card, and then pay for their lottery tickets, beer and cigarettes with the cash untouched by the demands of the grocery budget.
As a professional statistician, I can assure you there's an extremely high correlation between food stamps and discretionary spending on the lottery and other non-essentials. I've also observed first-hand that like "free health care," food stamp consumers are independent of the constraint of price. Coupons are never used nor are less-costly store brand alternatives purchased. When "the government" (c'est moi) is paying, why be thrifty?
Likewise, the two neighbors of ours in the food stamp category near us own multiple large flat-screen TVs, while my wife and I (who we've determined now are not eligible for any tax rebate by a hair) still use a single 25" tube. They have Playstation 3s, Snowmobiles and ATVs, we have a tired Honda Civic that doesn't like the snow. They order out for pizza and take-out fast food; we grow a large garden annually to make the grocery cost more manageable.
Of course, we put money into our IRAs, 401Ks, 529s for our children, we pay for our health care, have set aside a small cash reserve for hard times, and pay the taxes for all of our "poor" neighbors to live the life of excess. Just as we don't ask you all to pay our groceries and entertainment expenses, we're doing the same with our retirement and kids college. In that respect, the $80K-$175K middle class is today's serf, working 60+ hour weeks, enslaved to be economically abused by the political elites for the benefit of their lobby and the privileged, pleasure-filled faux-poor.
We're ready for a tax revolt. Neither the elites nor the faux-poor have shown any restraint, and the current pseudo-rebate (ignoring those who contribute the most, while refunding to those who have not paid) is the last straw.
Re: if the government decides to broaden stimulus to the middle class through existing avenues, one-time increases to tax credits for energy saving home improvements would be efficacious.
Um, and what those of us who already have energy efficient homes, or who don't own homes at all?
On the "fat" I am surprised that not one single person has brought up the other side of equation, the lack of physical activity. Surely that has something to do with obesity, both in the poor and the rest of us?
"...fat people have to eat significantly less than thin people in order to lose weight."
So they can spend even less on food. Win / win!
What needs changing is the intelligence level of the poor. Having spent a LOT of time among both the working and non-working poor, I can tell you that, fat or thin, black or white, male or female, they are generally less bright than, say, the readers of this blog.
This results in poor choices throughout life: not paying attention in school, leaving school without a diploma, early pregnancies, poor job performance, criminal behavior, POOR FOOD CHOICES (and poor budgeting of money in general), poor parenting choices (including not exercising, or dieting, and not having their kids exercise, or diet) ... the list is long and depressing...
Change that pattern and you change the poverty cycle - and lessen the chances they will be obese, hungry, poor, have a criminal record, etc...
This may seem like a harsh post, but it is far less harsh than life on the dole, or in the ranks of the working poor.
Here we go again.
When I started medical school in 1969, the Great Society was just getting going. Relieving poverty was the thing, and hunger in America was a big national problem. The liberals at that time were asked why poor people were fatter than non-poor people. (Yes, they were fatter then,too.) I remember my professor of nutrition explaining that poor people, whose diets were mainly starch, had to eat more to get necessary nutrients.
(Maybe, but they weren't going hungry.)
I believed that then, but not now. The only nutritional deficiency I have seen in poor people is Vitamin D, and that only in dark skinned poor people.
Eating well can be very cheap. This weekend I ate healthy and cheap, eating apples, kiwis, clementines, turkey, and home made whole wheat bread. Nothing could be cheaper, although the kiwis could be jettisoned. Whole wheat flour is fairly nutritious. And cheap, especially if you buy it in bulk. Be sure to buy your yeast in bulk, too. I could have tossed in some potatoes if I wanted more calories and low cost. No butter. No chips. Eat red meat once per week.
I lost 30 pounds three years and kept it off. I lost the weight by not eating. Forget the set point nonsense. YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR SET POINTS! Look at how eating a high salt diet changes your kidney set points for retention of salt, causing hypertension. Look at how very modest exercise will reverse insulin insensitivity. Just change your eating habits. People are as addicted to food as they are to tobacco. And, just like tobacco, obesity is very bad for your health. Those who say it isn't so bad just don't see all these pathetic, obese diabetics with multiple medical problems (renal failure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, gout, liver disease, to mention just a few.). Just stop eating and lose weight. Just do it.
Oh, about those food stamps. Why not just mail a $500 check to everybody who voted in the last election?
Our govt is a joke, of course, but the joke is on the taxpayers.
Sleep is an important link between obesity and poverty. Obesity radically drives up the risk of suffering from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), a condition that destroys your sleep by two distinct processes: sleep fragmentation and oxygen fluctuations and desaturations. Both processes are very damaging to the brain, producing both temporary and irreversible changes in cognitive function most notable in the areas of attention, concentration and memory. As you would expect, these changes result in a lower IQ either permanently if the condition continues too long untreated or temporarily if the condition is reversed with proper treatment.
Some years ago we published information about two small studies on sleep disorders among individuals in welfare-to-work programs. The most striking finding was that more than 50% of these individuals, who were predominantly women, reported symptoms consistent with serious and complex sleep disorders likely to be compromising their intellectual function. These disorders included SDB, chronic insomnia, chronic nightmares, and sleep-related leg movement conditions. Many of the participants in our study were obese as well.
I have long advocated the use of sleep evaluations (and essential treatment) by various service programs that help individuals in lower socio-economic situations. The likely impact in terms of health benefits, quality of life, work performance, productivity, and cost-savings would no doubt be huge and certainly something for policymakers to "sleep on."
You can find more discussion about sleep disorders and their impact on health, wealth, and quality of life at my blog: http://www.sleepdynamictherapy.com.
Aside from the argument that impoverished obese people do (or are at least able to) make the same healthy food selection choices, and argument I am not totally convinced of, there is another point I would like to make. It seems that several, smaller more nutritious meals is definitely preferable to eating one large meal. For example, someone who eats 5-400 calorie meals is less likely to become obese than someone who eats one 2000 calorie meal each day. It is possible that someone living meal to meal (or paycheck to paycheck) might gorge occasionally rather than plan out a healthy diet. On the other hand, I couldn't agree more that it is an issue of personal responsibility to do the best you can with whatever resources you do have.
Kathy:
You are clearly unaware of the latest research, which shows that fat people have to eat significantly less than thin people in order to lose weight.
I'm not convinced that this is false, but I'd like to see a reference to specific research demonstrating this under strict clinical supervision (necessary because people often lie to themselves and others about food intake). I suspect that the opposite is true--that there are people who can eat much more than normal and still not gain weight--but I'm very skeptical of the idea that there are people who can still gain weight eating much less than normal.
People aren't fat because they are poor or because they can't buy more expensive food.
They are fat because they don't know how to cook or budget. The Food Stamp Challenge of trying to eat for $3 a day per person is bogus. No one buys food on a daily basis. In California a family of four can recieve as much as $506 a month in food stamps. If you can't buy and cook food for that amount..there is no help for you.
The poor have become consumers of last resort. Required to consume vast quantities to maintain the health of industry.
Yes you can, and no it doesn't. You are clearly unaware of the latest research, which shows that fat people have to eat significantly less than thin people in order to lose weight. Put another way, these studies have shown that fat people stay fat even when they eat the same kind and amount of food that thin people eat. It's simply not true that fat people are fat (in general) because they can't stop stuffing food into their mouths.
No, Kathy, I'm not unaware of the latest research. In fact, in medical school I did a fairly complete survey of it, and have recently gotten back up to date with the sources in Gary Taubes's book Good Calories, Bad Calories (which I recommend, by the way.) What's more, as I've struggled with my own weight since I was about 8 years old (literally!), I take a rather personal interest in it.
But the "Pima Indian" effect you're talking about --- the tendency of the metabolism to self-regulate in response to caloric deficit --- can't overcome the First Law of Thermodynamics: if you consistently eat fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight. Period.
You may also be cranky, tired, cold and sickly, but you will lose weight.
Fat poor people aren't eating too few calories. It's possible that they're fat because they're eating too high a proportion of calories with too high a glycemic impact, but that's a matter of food choice, not cost: you can make a helluva pot of collards with side meat, or chili with beans, or moong dal, for a very few dollars.
A couple of years ago, the subject of conversation in the studio happened to hit on this topic. A young lady (a freshman or sophmore) complained that "healthy food is too expensive, and poor people can't afford it".
You know what she was talking about? "Diet" and "fat free" processed food, Lean Cuisine frozen dinners, Snackwells cookies, etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be making decisions for people, but you can't escape the overwhelming evidence that many - perhaps a majority - are simply too ignorant to make effective diet choices.
I worked while going to school for my undergrad degree; I made anywhere between 8 and 16k a year (this was recent, not back in the 80's or something). I managed to live comfortably on this, yet I knew co-workers and others who made significantly more and still struggled.
There is a vast difference between "not making a lot of money" and "being poor"; one is a state of employment, the other is a lifestyle. Poor people tend to make ridiculously bad decisions with money - but the effects hit more than their wallet.
My theory? A lot of poor people aren't fat because they're poor - they're poor because they're fat.
How much does it cost to eat at McDonalds 1 or 2 times a day, eat a bunch of junkfood and sodas out of the vending machine at work, and then eat microwave dinners when you get home? Do you have any idea how much that costs!? If I had done that, I'd have been living in a box in short order. Yet people who barely made more than me and had 3 kids to support were doing just that. And, lastly, and back on topic, what is a diet like that going to do for your weight?
"I recommend, ALG, that you take a look through the "For Rent" section of your local daily some time and count the proportion of ads that say "No Section 8."
My dad was a smallscale real estate investor, landlord of about 10 houeses at his peak.
he was a very firm believer in "No Section 8". He'd heard too many horror stories from other landlords of Section 8 tenants being even more careless/destructive of the property than the normal lower-middle income sort.
My dad finally got out of the business because cheaper houses that on paper should give proportionally a better rate of return, needed so much more work, and incurred more lost/late rent because of the caliber of the tenants (and Uncle Sam giving the poorest more $$ won;t give them middle class values of being responsible for their(your) stuff). OTOH, more somewhat more expensive houses in better areas could charge more rent, and should attract a better class of people more likely to apy and take care of things -- but the rent was too close to the cost for those people to buy their own home outright, so the pool of potential tenants was smaller. And the ones left, if unabel to buy in spite of decent income, likely had other problems in conjunction with shaky credit.
But the "Pima Indian" effect you're talking about --- the tendency of the metabolism to self-regulate in response to caloric deficit --- can't overcome the First Law of Thermodynamics: if you consistently eat fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight. Period.
Maybe, but how meaningful is that if a person has to cut calories to near-starvation level to lose weight and then gains all or most of the weight back after going back to a normal, and healthful, number of calories per day? Weight loss that is achieved that way is almost impossible to maintain.
But what is absolutely certain is that, if you are obese for genetic and metabolic reasons and you cut calories to the extent you would need to cut them to lose any weight at all, you will be hungry. And since that is the point that you denied in the first place ("Uh, Kathy, I'd like to draw your attention to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You cannot be consistently hungry for any length of time and be obese."), my point stands that you are wrong. Period. :-)
I brought these two ideas up at Tom Maguire's blog but they haven't really generated discussion:
1.) Once you increase food stamps as a stimulus, you'll never be able to return to the lower amount. Would you like to be known as the politician that cut food stamps even if you are cutting from an arbitrary inflated level?
2.) Since the stamps are targeted at food, could the stimulus drive up core inflation driving the country even further into stagflation?
I assume you mean Brandon, and while I'm certainly not the first, I do abstain from food regularly for periods of 20-36 hours. As I said, hunger is healthful.
And because you abstain from food that means hunger is healthful as a general proposition? I don't know if it means hunger is healthful for you. Just because you do it and it makes you feel good about yourself, doesn't mean it's healthful in the long-term.
Also, since I don't know you, I have no idea about a number of factors that very much affect your ability to do this, such as, for starters, age and general health. I also don't know (and you don't say) whether you ingest anything else that helps guard against the adverse effects of abstaining from food. There's a huge difference between not eating or eating too little or the wrong kinds of foods because you don't have the money to buy food, and "abstaining from food" in a controlled and planned way, which often (usually?) includes ingesting vitamins and highly enriched liquid supplements.
Here are a few circumstances which would make it highly inadvisable or downright dangerous to abstain from food for long periods of time:
1. If you are pregnant or nursing -- and obviously we cannot eliminate either possibility for you, but not everyone is male.
2. If you have diabetes, hypoglycemia, if you are not in top physical shape, if you are obese (even if you do not have diabetes), if you have liver or kidney problems, if you have an autoimmune disorder, if you do not already eat a healthy diet in general, if you have cardiac arrhythmia (and I would assume if you have heart disease in general). Furthermore, anyone who fasts intentionally (as opposed to having no choice in the matter) should do it under medical supervision. Which automatically eliminates it as a possibility for anyone who is in financial stress (which is the vast majority of Americans in Bush's America).
And yes, I did mean Brandon. I'm not sure where I got Brian from, but I apologize for that.
...and obviously we cannot eliminate either possibility for you, but not everyone is male.
Damn! I meant "and obviously we CAN eliminate either possibility for you..."
Sheesh.
Kathy:
When I pointed out that the research on calorie restriction and intermittent fasting, you dismissed it because I don't do it personally. Now that I've pointed out that I do in fact fast intermittently (water only, no expensive vitamins or drinks involved), you dismiss it as anecdotal.
My personal experience doesn't show that hunger is healthful--the research does. My personal experience, and that of many other people, shows that it's practicable.
I don't know the effects of intermittent fasting on pregnant or nursing women, and I doubt that you do, either, since there's unlikely to have been much research on the topic. I agree that it's probably contraindicated for precautionary reasons, though. Of course, this means at most that a small minority of people should eat every day, not that everyone needs to do so, as you originally claimed. Of course, getting pregnant in the first place is contraindicated if you can't afford to buy food regularly.
Regarding the other contraindications you suggest, calorie restriction and intermittent fasting have been shown to have prophylactic effects against most of these conditions in animals, and similar short-term effects in humans (though there are no long-term studies). Whether actually having these diseases contraindicates fasting, I don't know (though I do know of at least one person whose hypoglycemia cleared up on a one-meal-per-day plan), but given that you seem to be wholly unfamiliar with any research on IF, I'm disinclined to take your word for it.
Unless someone is in exceptionally bad condition, I see no reason for medical supervision beyond that which one might get at a regular checkup. And your claim that the vast majority of Americans are in financial stress and don't have access to medical care is simply rubbish. But why let that get in the way of scoring a political point?
I understand fasts, I have done mild fasts in the past--mostly just 48 hours and truly had to keep my activities low key, no working twelve hour shifts on my feet all day...
I have read that when trying to lose weight that fasting is not a good strategy. Apparently your body goes into a "starvation" mode that causes it to increase resistance to losing weight and can ultimately lead to binging. I don't believe that is advisable for a morbidly obese individual. I am not a doctor but I am a registered nurse. I understand from the RD's I work with that small meals spaced throughout the day averaging of about 1200-1500 daily calories coupled with physical exercise-- some resistance work along with about 30 minutes of walking will result in weight loss. Maintaining this is difficult as life long learned dietary habits are very hard to change.
I find it humorous that we are laying the curse of obesity at the feet of the poor when it clearly afflicts all strata of society in the US mostly owing to the standard American diet, long work hours and less opportunity to exercise--more sedentary leisure activities. I see just as many chubby rich kids as middle class and poor.
Perhaps the stimulus package can include incentives for companies to avoid offshoring and layoffs in effort to prevent the creation of more poor (American) people.
Ah. I get it. The poor wouldn't be obese or hungry if only they weren't allowed to make their own choices.
They need to be kept in government provided housing eating government provided foods correctly chosen for them by people who are smarter than they are.
Not a bad idea, if you just think of them as a different type of Golden Retriever.
But under no circumstances should they be allowed to make their own choices because the do such a poor job.
Let Nanny do it.
"Maybe, but how meaningful is that if a person has to cut calories to near-starvation level to lose weight and then gains all or most of the weight back after going back to a normal, and healthful, number of calories per day"
Kathy- being hungry on occasion doesnt mean you are near starvation. Being hungry on occasion doesnt mean you are malnurished. When the poor start dying of malnutrition, rickets, etc instead of diabetes, we can talk. Until then the basic truth is that we are in an instant gratification society where you grab a snickers if you are hungry in the afternoon and you stop at McDs on the way home instead of cooking something decent. And the poor tend to have less time and resources to mitigate this, and quite honestly less good decision making in general.
Bottom line- its ok to be hungry during the day. You get used to it. Starvation IS NOT THE SAME as hunger. Starvation is painful, hunger is annoying. Hunger is an incurable part of life, like being sleepy. I get sleepy sometimes, that doesnt mean im an insomniac and likely to die of blood poisoning if society doesnt supply with with ambien and silk sheets.
Mark,
Neither I nor Brandon equated hunger with starvation, or even *mentioned* the word starvation. Quit throwing out strawmen.
...it's ok to be hungry during the day. You get used to it.
Human beings can "get used" to almost anything that isn't immediately fatal. That doesn't change the fact that hunger caused by food insufficiency is painful and a serious problem.
It's okay to get hungry between meals. It's NOT okay to be hungry because it's Thursday and you won't be able to buy food until you get paid on Tuesday.
Your analysis is not a serious one. It's a callous dismissal of the issue. Brandon at least was offering a specific, focused, scientific argument, even if it left out important points and was not entirely accurate. Your comment is just hateful and mean.
I've read a lot of round-and-round about the obvious here, some more shrill in their characterizations. Yes, some obesity is a product of nothing more than laziness, and some is a product of ignorance of good diet.
Yes, everyone can eat healthy foods and to a degree, healthy foods can be cheap to come by. But let's be frank: the American way of life, especially that lived by poor people, doesn't exactly provide a lot of time for meal preparation and shopping.
When one works 50+ hour weeks at a mentally and physically unforgiving job, taking even a little extra time to put together a healthy meal is challenging. Not impossible, but challenging. When I get off work at 8 pm and I've got an hour to spend with my daughter before she goes to bed, grabbing a quick sandwich on the way home beats wasting even 15 minutes of that hour in the kitchen.
Sometimes the consequences of being poor are of nothing more than being exhausted.
My husband's been out of work for a year with only a short employment time in between. Our yearly income has been cut by approximately $30,000.00. Luckily, we've not fallen behind on the bills (yet) or gone completely hungry (yet). Eating out is a thing of the past though. But we do look healthy and are slimmer than we were because we're trying to exist on as little as we can buy in a week's time to satisfy us, yet stay off public assistance. Meanwhile, that same food is costing us seemingly double what it used to. I'm sorry, but our pride will just not allow us to use food stamps. I can eat beans and rice for as long as I need to until we get back on our feet again but I just can't do that.
It is a myth that you cannot help the poor and that you cannot reduce poverty. Poverty decreased rapidly during the years the Great Society programs were initially in place. It was only after they were cutback and the resurgence of poverty after those cutbacks that the false claims that you cannot reduce poverty were made.
But the lie has been repeated often enough and people believe the inane idea that you cannot help people by helping them. Of course, it comforts us to believe that there's nothing we can do, but 2 minutes of honest reflection would tell you that it's absurd, absurd and convenient, alas.
Yes, everyone can eat healthy foods and to a degree, healthy foods can be cheap to come by. But let's be frank: the American way of life, especially that lived by poor people, doesn't exactly provide a lot of time for meal preparation and shopping. When one works 50+ hour weeks at a mentally and physically unforgiving job, taking even a little extra time to put together a healthy meal is challenging.
Here we go again. This is another meme that keeps cropping up. This "The poor just don't have the time or energy to shop and cook healthy meals, what with their busy lives and long hours at work." Really? Evidence, please. Just what proportion of the poor really do work "50+ hour weeks at a mentally and physically unforgiving job?" I suspect it's low. From the evidence I have seen, lack of or inadequate paid employment is one of the primary reasons why poor people are poor.
Re: But the "Pima Indian" effect you're talking about --- the tendency of the metabolism to self-regulate in response to caloric deficit --- can't overcome the First Law of Thermodynamics: if you consistently eat fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight.
Well, yes. But the amount of food you are talking about cutting out basically reduces you to a starvation diet, which is profoundly unhealthy in and of itself, and deprives you of the energy needed for exercize. Again, where is the understanding that obesity is at least half due to lack of physical activity? It isn't so much that we Americans (and not just the poor) are taking in too many calories, but also that we are burning too few.
Again, where is the understanding that obesity is at least half due to lack of physical activity? It isn't so much that we Americans (and not just the poor) are taking in too many calories, but also that we are burning too few.
Oh, but haven't you heard? The poor can't get any exercise, either. They can't afford gym memberships. Or even the bus fare to the local YMCA. If they leave their home to go for a run, they'll be caught in a hail of bullets from gang wars. They can't even do jump-rope in their living room, because the ceiling's too low. Or something. Always, always, there's some excuse. They have no choice but to sit on the couch eating junk food.
Oh, but haven't you heard? The poor can't get any exercise, either. They can't afford gym memberships. Or even the bus fare to the local YMCA. If they leave their home to go for a run, they'll be caught in a hail of bullets from gang wars. They can't even do jump-rope in their living room, because the ceiling's too low. Or something. Always, always, there's some excuse. They have no choice but to sit on the couch eating junk food.
Mixner, I pray that someday you will be in the position of knowing from personal experience whether your words above are true, or not. And I mean that with all my heart.
Kathy,
Thank you for revealing the true face of liberal, religious compassion yet again.
My ex-wife was 5"2" and weight 160 lbs. She exercised every day and ate a pretty healthy diet. She walked from the train to work from an extra 2 stops away to get a bit more exercise. She was never able to lose much weight, and if she did, the loss never lasted that long.
My current girlfriend is 5'9" and weighs 125 lbs. She hits the gym 3 times each week and sometimes we walk along the ocean when the weather permits. She eats 3 full meals each day, with snacks interspersed. She identifies herself as the Carb Queen, and never fails to polish off the bread basket when we eat out. Her weight hasn't fluctuated by more than 5 lbs. either way, and most of that is hormone related.
This is the kind of thing that cracks me up whenever food and weight is brought up on any blog. Studies are quoted, anecdotal eveidence is introduced, and no one listens to anyone else, because the "facts" are irrefutable. We all know people like my girlfriend, and most see her weight situation being due to her "fast" metabolism (though to other women, she's often a "skinny bitch", especially after they see her eat!).
The question has always remained-why do people find it easy to chalk up the ravenous thin person's weight to metabolism, but the fat person is not suffering from a "slow" metabolism, but gluttony?
Thank you for revealing the true face of liberal, religious compassion yet again.
Awwwww! Thank you, Mix! But I have to say, I could never do it as well as you can. :-)
Хороший заработок в интернете. Нужно покоментировать страницы, которые вам откроют после регистрации, и за это платят денги и не малые. Я лично зарабатываю около 500$ в месяц.
Регистрируемся тут [url=http://www.AWSurveys.com/HomeMain.cfm?RefID=yuzerok]awsurveys.com[/url]
1.Нажимите Create A Free Account
UserName - имя пользователя
Password - пароль 7-15 знаков
First Name - имя
Last Name - Фамилия
Email Address - почтовый ящик
Далее вводим цифорки-буковки, нажимаем кнопку Create A Free Account
Вы зарегистрировались!
2.Далее видим таблицу, имеющую такой вид:
The Following Surveys are Available:
Welcome Survey -- A $6.00 Website Evaluation is Available.
A $4.00 Website Evaluation is Available.
A $4.00 Website Evaluation is Available.
A $4.00 Website Evaluation is Available.
A $4.00 Website Evaluation is Available.
A $4.00 Website Evaluation is Available.
3.Щелкаем по одной из ссылок на этой странице, попадаем на следущюю страницу и там щелкаем по надписи "Start Survey Now"
4.Здесь 2 ссылки и 2 поля, в них нужно написать отзыв о сайте на англ языке.
(пример: It is an excellent site, I shall advise its all, this is good job, it's very usefull web-resource и т.п)
5.Щелкае по кнопке внизу "Click to submit ..." Щелкаем по ссылке "Click Here to go Home and..."
6.И так далее по ссылкам и так каждый день.
7.Для вывода денег воспользуйтесь кнопкой "Redeem Money"
выводятся деньги в системе PayPal (легко переводятся в вебмани)
могу помочь тем кто не знаком с электронными платежными системами
Wow, cool man, big thanks! http://mgyflnnmwfy.com
Discovering The Best Antivirus Software For You Antivirus software
refers to computer programs or tools that are used for identifying, blocking, and removing malicious applications such as computer viruses and malwares from the system. They have. Symantec Announces Plans for New Antivirus Administration Console for Macintosh Antivirus Administration Console for Macintosh CUPERTINO, Calif. Sept. 16, 2004 - Symantec Corp. (NASDAQ: SYMC), the global leader in information security, today announced plans for a Web-based. Trend Micro Holds Top Revenue Positions in Internet Gateway, Mail Server, and File Server Antivirus Antivirus Markets Company surpasses overall antivirus market growth rate from 2002 2003, based on new market study Cupertino, California August 31, 2004 Trend Micro, Inc. (TSE: 4704,. Symantec's New Norton AntiVirus 10.0 For Macintosh Offers Enhanced Usability And Customization AntiVirus 10.0 For Macintosh Offers Enhanced Usability And Customization Features, 'Tiger' Compatibility New Product Featur