U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-16-2015, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,079,459 times
Reputation: 1208

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Suburbs didn't make people fat. Outback, Famous Dave's, Cracker Barrel, Olive Garden, Burger King, bacon, hashbrowns, pork rinds, large sodas, and triple bacon cheddar burgers have made people fat.
This and the whole "let's stock up on groceries for the month" culture. Especially "Let's stock up on this because it's on sale." Most of what you can easily stock up on is not going to be fresh and healthy--especially if it's on sale. Ironic how much easier grocery shopping is with a car, and yet it tends to make you want to go to the market less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2015, 04:46 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
This and the whole "let's stock up on groceries for the month" culture. Especially "Let's stock up on this because it's on sale." Most of what you can easily stock up on is not going to be fresh and healthy--especially if it's on sale. Ironic how much easier grocery shopping is with a car, and yet it tends to make you want to go to the market less.
Some of us with families, jobs and other obligations don't like going to the store every day as a social activity like some of you young singles do. It is certainly possible to stock up on frozen items if you have a freezer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2015, 04:51 PM
 
1,915 posts, read 2,048,846 times
Reputation: 2192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Some of us with families, jobs and other obligations don't like going to the store every day as a social activity like some of you young singles do. It is certainly possible to stock up on frozen items if you have a freezer.
THIS, too. The realities of work and family life need to be taken into account, something some of these people who want to socially engineer us never seem to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2015, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,894 posts, read 7,655,626 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Suburbs didn't make people fat. Outback, Famous Dave's, Cracker Barrel, Olive Garden, Burger King, bacon, hashbrowns, pork rinds, large sodas, and triple bacon cheddar burgers have made people fat.

In 1950, there weren't many obese people in the rural South. And that's not even necessarily because they engaged in more physical activity. None of the women in my family worked on farms. Nor did they do pilates and yoga. It's just that they didn't have access to Applebee's and Papa John's multiple times per week.
I don't often agree with BajanYankee, but I definitely agree with this. I believe I saw this on a TV documentary that, when McDonald's first started to spread across country, the only size soft-drink they served is now the "small," they only had one serving size for their french fries, etc. Today, if you go to McD's and order a burger, fries and a Coke, you've just ordered a happy meal without the toy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
THIS. Moreover, Inner city urban people tend to be fatter than suburbanites. Look it up. The suburbanite may "drive everywhere" but s/he is still a gym rat and often shops at Whole (Paycheck) Foods. Moreover, the suburbanite often has nice parks to hike in, not full of predators and homeless "campgrounds", that the inner city person does not.
This is often the result of living in a food desert. Poorer people, who are less likely to have reliable personal transportation, are stuck with the stores that are nearby. These stores often specialize in junk food and liquor.

I live in a neighborhood somewhat like this. (although we do have a weekly farmer's market, and the same group that runs the market is working on opening a food coop down the street) Within a mile of my house, there are two options for buying groceries: the new and clean CVS, or the old and dirty Red and White market, in the other direction. I will also add that there is a 34 acre park at the center of this neighborhood, and it is not full of homeless campgrounds, and predators.

Quote:
The inner city person watching soaps and trashy TV all day and eating junk food, on the other hand....

No, social engineers, you can't socially engineer diet and exercise choices.
Considering how much suburban sprawl and car dependency has changed the US landscape over the last 50-75 years, I'm not sure I'd trivialize those who prefer a more urban/traditional style of development by referring to them as "social engineers."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2015, 08:40 AM
bu2
 
9,980 posts, read 6,431,746 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
err not quite. I was born in the mid 70ies and sorta got to see a bit of the world before wide spread computerization, the microwave and VCR were common, and before all T.V.'s came with remotes. The short people were more physically active back then but it was common chores and not hard farm work.

In the late 70ies early 80ies remote controls were not found with all t.vs. and so just watching t.v. required someone(often the kid) to get up and change the channel. Without the VCR, you may have went to an 2nd run thether or drive in(and you likely sneaked some food in esp. the drive in....food you prepared yourself). Kids spent much more time outdoors riding bikes and running up an down the block as video games of the era are not quite so immersive and parents not quite so paranoid.

People ate less at restaurants but not because there were fewer of them but because relatively speaking they were less affordable. While some items have gone up in price other items have not really kept up with inflation. The short food, clothing, dry cleaning were more expensive. Major appliances like T.V.s, washing machines dishwashers and fridges were likewise a bit more expensive.Cars of that era are cheaper to purchase but more expensive over the long term than modern vehicles because they broke down more often. The menu at Macdonolads was much more limited(I remember how hot chicken nuggets were when they came out.).

If you wanted an salad or coleslaw you could not purchase pre-shredded lettuce or cabbage. If you wanted to take you lunch to work you could not pack left overs or an frozen dinner, you had to pack something that did not need refrigeration or heating which means an extra task. And the whole category of frozen dinner was much more limited really not much beyond turkey and dressing, meatloaf, saulberry steak, and fried chicken. Lack of microwave also causes you to rethink some food choices and dinning patterns. Reheating leftovers without the microwave generates more pots and pans to clean as well as takes longer. This means that young children say under 12 can't really reheat food because you simple do not trust them with the stove. And a few items like rice don't really reheat well on the stove.
Refreshing to see someone who actually understands instead of this nonsense about HFCS (Sugar is sugar whether it comes from corn, sugar cane or beets-most of these anti-hfcs people probably don't even know about beet sugar).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2015, 08:42 AM
bu2
 
9,980 posts, read 6,431,746 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Plenty of inner city people exercise a lot and worry about healthy eating. They tend towards affluent.
With all this talk about childhood obesity, I think if you looked at income level, you would find its overwhelmingly a poor and lower middle class issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2015, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,079,459 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Some of us with families, jobs and other obligations don't like going to the store every day as a social activity like some of you young singles do. It is certainly possible to stock up on frozen items if you have a freezer.
Of course there are various reasons behind people's shopping habits and personal decisions (time management, life priorities, ect.). But my point was simply that most things you can buy in bulk and stock up on are unhealthy and conducive to obesity. Just ask any dietitian about this. And a neighbourhood design which caters to this kind of shopping will statistically have more obesity and health issues--all other things being equal (which is of course, rarely the case--economics can play a larger role).

Also, you really don't understand singles and most definitely not single millennials if you believe that going to the store is some kind of social activity. As if they don't have commutes, jobs, don't work long hours, don't have obligations and social lives and other things to do besides going to the store! In the end, is several 20 visits a week vs. an hour or more once a week isn't really *THAT* much a difference in time commitment? On most days when I stop at the store on the way back from the bus stop, I get home less than 15 minutes later than "usual." Ironically, one would think that quick trips to the store would be easier with a family car and ample parking right in front of the store....

(P.S. I am fast leaving behind the part of my life when I can be considered "young," and I am most definitely not single.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2015, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
Of course there are various reasons behind people's shopping habits and personal decisions (time management, life priorities, ect.). But my point was simply that most things you can buy in bulk and stock up on are unhealthy and conducive to obesity. Just ask any dietitian about this. And a neighbourhood design which caters to this kind of shopping will statistically have more obesity and health issues--all other things being equal (which is of course, rarely the case--economics can play a larger role).

Also, you really don't understand singles and most definitely not single millennials if you believe that going to the store is some kind of social activity. As if they don't have commutes, jobs, don't work long hours, don't have obligations and social lives and other things to do besides going to the store! In the end, is several 20 visits a week vs. an hour or more once a week isn't really *THAT* much a difference in time commitment? On most days when I stop at the store on the way back from the bus stop, I get home less than 15 minutes later than "usual." Ironically, one would think that quick trips to the store would be easier with a family car and ample parking right in front of the store....

(P.S. I am fast leaving behind the part of my life when I can be considered "young," and I am most definitely not single.)
Not really. The things I stuck up on are mostly canned beans, rice, oatmeal, pastas, tomato sauce, some frozen things like meats or vegetables, sundries/paper goods. They've invented refrigeration nowadays so vegetables, eggs, dairy and so forth easily last a week. Back when I didn't own a car, I'd make a couple stops a week at the overpriced store that I could walk to and either arrange a trip or use Zipcars a few times a month for everything I could stock up on, which was the same things I stock up on today.

There's nothing to do with neighborhood design. Regardless of neighborhood design it's easier to eat potato chips and fried chicken strips and frozen pizzas than it is to cook. It doesn't even directly have anything to do with economics. Potato chips and microwavable foods aren't cheaper than eating a healthful diet. What they are is easier. Economics comes into play in the form of socioeconomics. Higher SES has more awareness and social pressures of living a healthful lifestyle than lower SES does. Sometimes that occurs in high density areas (San Francisco, Manhattan) and sometimes that occurs in low density areas (Marin County, Mountain West). Likewise you have the highest obesity rates and lowest physical activity rates in generally the South and poor inner city neighborhoods.

A lot of socially conscious groups have pushed to get real grocery stores in poor inner city neighborhoods and then found out it wasn't the lack of food as the real food still wouldn't sell. Public outreach nowadays is much more about trying to teach basic cooking and nutrition information in those areas as simply making the food available does nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2015, 03:15 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
Of course there are various reasons behind people's shopping habits and personal decisions (time management, life priorities, ect.). But my point was simply that most things you can buy in bulk and stock up on are unhealthy and conducive to obesity. Just ask any dietitian about this. And a neighbourhood design which caters to this kind of shopping will statistically have more obesity and health issues--all other things being equal (which is of course, rarely the case--economics can play a larger role).

Also, you really don't understand singles and most definitely not single millennials if you believe that going to the store is some kind of social activity. As if they don't have commutes, jobs, don't work long hours, don't have obligations and social lives and other things to do besides going to the store! In the end, is several 20 visits a week vs. an hour or more once a week isn't really *THAT* much a difference in time commitment? On most days when I stop at the store on the way back from the bus stop, I get home less than 15 minutes later than "usual." Ironically, one would think that quick trips to the store would be easier with a family car and ample parking right in front of the store....

(P.S. I am fast leaving behind the part of my life when I can be considered "young," and I am most definitely not single.)
No "real" dietician would agree with the bold. Myth or Fact: Fresh Produce is More Nutritious Than Frozen Produce / Nutrition / Healthy Eating
Meat and bread can be frozen as well. Canned produce usually is equivalent to fresh nutritionally also.

I'm going by what people on this forum have said. Many think it's "fun" to go to the grocery store every single day. I recall a post one time where a poster said "if you live close to a store, you don't have to buy in bulk/stock up".

Yes, several visits a week is more consuming than a longer trip once a week, if for no other reason than the travel time involved, not to mention grocers know that when you darken the door, you're prone to impulse buying. The less frequently you do so, the less impulse stuff that you may never eat/use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2015, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
No "real" dietician would agree with the bold. Myth or Fact: Fresh Produce is More Nutritious Than Frozen Produce / Nutrition / Healthy Eating
Meat and bread can be frozen as well. Canned produce usually is equivalent to fresh nutritionally also.

I'm going by what people on this forum have said. Many think it's "fun" to go to the grocery store every single day. I recall a post one time where a poster said "if you live close to a store, you don't have to buy in bulk/stock up".

Yes, several visits a week is more consuming than a longer trip once a week, if for no other reason than the travel time involved, not to mention grocers know that when you darken the door, you're prone to impulse buying. The less frequently you do so, the less impulse stuff that you may never eat/use.
Also on impulse control, my method of impulse control is to not buy much of it. I really like ice cream and I'll usually buy ice cream which promptly gets eaten in the first few days. Then I have no more ice cream in the house until I go shopping. If I'm being particularly draconian about what I eat, which isn't all that often, I won't buy it at all but normally I'll allow myself a small amount of it. That works pretty well when I'm shopping once a week. If I was shopping every day I'd have to be much more aware of ice cream versus non-ice cream shoppings or I'd just buy it every few days. I'd have to think up some other mindless and easily adhered to schedule like only buying ice cream on weekends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top