Posted on 08/30/2007 4:38:04 PM PDT by blam
Good point.
Now you've introduced two appliances -- cheap ones, to be sure -- an element of skill, and prep time before work instead of after. I'm not saying that it's impossible, or even all that difficult, but it's something that needs to be taught, rather than just handing over a voucher or an EBT card.
If it would help bring people in, pitch it as cultural history and community pride, not as charity -- red beans and rice, gumbo, chili, black beans, menudo -- these are all rich in history as well as nutrition.
As an ER physician of more then 20 years, with experience all over the country I can state that it has been my observation that the poor are in fact more likely to be obese and engage in other bad health habits ( smoking, drug use, drinking to excess ) then the well to do.
For what it’s worth.
I have no gripe with Whole Foods. They offer premium goods at premium prices. You can get as good or better at farmer's markets for far less money, but it takes more time and effort. One of the trade-offs you have to make in life.
Whole Foods is at one end of the scale -- maximum money, minimum time. At the opposite end of the scale is growing your own, on your own land (if you're in the country), in your yard (suburbs) or in a community garden (city).
A friend of mine owns an organic farm in East Tennessee. The first time I had dinner at her house, I was amazed -- the veggies positively exploded with flavor. A far cry from homogenized supermarket fareor veggies that had the life canned or frozen out of them.
Some of both, of course. The thing about a chicken/egg problem is that the classic question is "which came first?" but the inherent understanding is that it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
The New Deal/Great Society model to fight poverty substituted government programs, great in strength and resources but without a heart and soul, in place of church and community programs that were all heart but not sufficient to the task. Noble goals, good intentions, and even good results -- in the initial phases. But big bureaucracies don't adapt well to changing needs. So they continue to offer the same answers to new questions,
Public housing projects were a good solution then to the problems that existed then. People lived in shanties that had rats and flies, leaky roofs, garbage and sewage running along the streets and spreading disease. Challenge met and mastered.
But the projects were more like cattle pens than communities. The poor lived behind fences in isolated compounds -- they no longer counted the cops, shopkeepers, teachers and postmen who worked in the neighborhood among their neighbors. The approach should have changed at least twenty years ago, probably more like 30. But a big government bureaucracy is harder to steer than a train.
At least it's finally happening now. Cabrini Green, one of the great epic failures, is gone, blasted to the ground. Here in Atlanta, Techwood and East Lake Meadows -- an Orwellian name, if ever there was one, as there was nothing like a meadow about it -- is gone. Both neighborhoods are thriving.
Look, I'm pretty fat and pretty lazy. I'm not judging anyone. There are going to be enormously fat couch potatoes in every class and place; the folks who just don't try. I've seen 500-pound men in bib overalls and in tailored suits.
But among those who do try, it's easier for some folks than for others. That's the margin. That's the difference. For me, taking a walk around the block or a bike ride is a simple matter of getting off my flabby butt (and navigating the not-inconsiderable hills around here). For someone in a bad urban neighborhood, it's a matter of dodging muggers, gang-bangers, buses and cabs -- after they get off their flabby butts.
How much more difficult is it -- 10% harder? 20%? 30%? That would more than account for the observed differences. And you'd certainly expect the working poor to be more trim than the desk-bound middle class; Physical labor pays less than mental. When you spend your working day hauling drywall or roof shingles or timber up a 20-foot ladder, you don't worry too much about which gym to join so you can go get a workout after you leave the job.
The urban working poor, often, have the worst of both worlds. They're working a grill, busing tables, washing dishes. They have neither hard physical labor nor good pay. After a long day, they just want to drop.
Obesity is exacerbated more by EATING TOO MUCH than by lack of exercise.
It takes discipline to stay hungry and relish smaller meals.
Sorry. I'm not gonna take that blank assertion for granted. A sedentary lifestyle leads to a slower metabolic rate. More muscle mass burns more calories, even at rest, even while asleep. Lance Armstrong consumes more calories in a day than I do. And his left leg burns more of them in an hour than my whole body does in a day.
Wow, a telephone survey! Why that makes it almost as valid as an internet poll.
ROFLMAO!
The great minds came to this conclusion based on a TELEPHONE survey!
(snort)
-----
I can imagine the conversations now-
"Ma'am, this is Lame Duck calling on behalf of the King county health department, and I'd like to ask a couple of questions. First what is your home worth? $250,000? Fine. Next question- are you fat?"
-----
Maybe the people in the poorer areas were just more honest about their weight.
Well, some folks are simply unable to exercise much due to disability, but by eating less and drinking lots of water (no caffeine or alcohol), it can be proven that the old excuse of slow metabolism can be overcome.
Discipline WORKS!
They don't have to. They are non-linear thinkers, and can quite literally accept the contradiction as long as their feelings are justified.
Here’s some “compassionate conservatism” that has been shown to work for over 2000 years:
“He who shall not work, nor shall he eat”
Behaviors always have consequences, but lefties FEEL that any negative consequences must be due to discrimination and oppression by those experiencing positive consequences.
That’s why they seek to use FORCE to make those who make good decisions pay for the consequences of those making bad decisions.
Ding-ding-ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
Dammit, they just leaked the same factors Popeye’s Fried Chicken uses to locate new franchises!
Part of this could be genetics. If a guy has money, he’s less likely to have to settle for a fat chick. Hot little gold diggers might go for a fat rich guy, but their children are going to have more “skinny genes” than the fat guy had. After a few generations, those with money are less likely to be genetically predisposed to obesity.
*sigh*”
Genetics are involved too. Some people are going to be fat even if they have normal diets and some can eat like pigs and never get fat.
That's so true!
To say obesity is caused by depression is like excusing alcoholism as an illness.
As you say, BEHAVIORS ALWAYS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
Eat less, lose more. Simple (but not easy.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.