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.
"Energy balance of the number of calories consumed from foods and beverages with the number of calories the body uses for activity plays a role in preventing excess weight gain."
By eliminating overlapping and duplicate FNS public assistance programs' food provisions for the exact same meals (both FNS authorities and the OIG state such duplication exists), the sources FNS public assistance program participants use to buy too much food and consume too many calories in relation to their physical activity is reduced.
But you haven't proven they are actually overeating.... Just that 75% are receiving redundant services.
Agree. Their insistence on defending the provision of too much food to the poor is so bizarre, though. It's as if they somehow benefit from keeping the poor grossly disproportionately obese and unhealthy. How oppressive and sadistic is that?
The insistence is to highlight your backward interpretation of data. And research. And study design.
Further, I work outside of this forum professionally to study and in turn improve the health of particular subsets of the US population, including individuals that may receive SNAP assistance. Hence, this topic is of keen interest to me. I've asked you multiple times your background, your professional interest, and, you neglect to answer.
When you examine similar threads in this forum, (which I just quickly did), it is often a bandwagon collective of the same individuals doing the same, repetitive, tiring thing. A verbal fight over this group versus that group. Links to articles with no verifiable data, incendiary commentary, verbal attacks, jabs, endless commentary regarding those in poverty, or minorities, those exploiting the system, the Country, in one way or another. To what end? What is the goal of posting this nonsense cyclically, for days, for months, for years? You're not really informing anyone as it's the same collective group just reiterating the same thing. In all other forums I personally post on City Data, I've never seen anything like this, and, it's quite a deterrant to discussion, it leads to threads of 40+ pages each that no one wants to review, because these forums are here to engage in meaningful discourse, not just throw blame and disguised hate at a particular subset.
You have not posted one peer reviewed, published article regarding the topic, because, if you did, or if you conducted a PubMed search and reviewed about 10 articles on the topic, you would find, these articles, published by experts in their respective fields, would highlight the precise thing that has been reiterated by individuals (including myself) in this thread trying to educate, and inform, rather than press on about some silly facet of supportive service programming. There are a lot of competing factors that lead to obesity. Most researchers that have isolated particular variables and studied this over time, have found a positive relationship between SNAP use, nutrient levels, dietary quality, and, in turn, health status. There are some unexplained relationships. There are some things that warrant further study. There are basic principles and notions regarding poverty, low educational attainment, obesity.
Further, you sustain circular commentary without an end goal. Rather than discussing what to do next, or an effective means of actually implementing change, or how this impacts your individual community and what you would like to see and how you would go about educating, or learning, or effecting some sort of change, you keep repeating the same nonsense.
Harping on the pathology of the poor, well, it's starting to become quite clear, that maybe it is time for some within this thread to introspectively review your need to do so, especially if you make no concerted effort outside of this thread, or forum, to effect meaningful change.
The insistence is to highlight your backward interpretation of data. And research. And study design.
Further, I work outside of this forum professionally to study and in turn improve the health of particular subsets of the US population, including individuals that may receive SNAP assistance. Hence, this topic is of keen interest to me. I've asked you multiple times your background, your professional interest, and, you neglect to answer.
When you examine similar threads in this forum, (which I just quickly did), it is often a bandwagon collective of the same individuals doing the same, repetitive, tiring thing. A verbal fight over this group versus that group. Links to articles with no verifiable data, incendiary commentary, verbal attacks, jabs, endless commentary regarding those in poverty, or minorities, those exploiting the system, the Country, in one way or another. To what end? What is the goal of posting this nonsense cyclically, for days, for months, for years? You're not really informing anyone as it's the same collective group just reiterating the same thing. In all other forums I personally post on City Data, I've never seen anything like this, and, it's quite a deterrant to discussion, it leads to threads of 40+ pages each that no one wants to review, because these forums are here to engage in meaningful discourse, not just throw blame and disguised hate at a particular subset.
You have not posted one peer reviewed, published article regarding the topic, because, if you did, or if you conducted a PubMed search and reviewed about 10 articles on the topic, you would find, these articles, published by experts in their respective fields, would highlight the precise thing that has been reiterated by individuals (including myself) in this thread trying to educate, and inform, rather than press on about some silly facet of supportive service programming. There are a lot of competing factors that lead to obesity. Most researchers that have isolated particular variables and studied this over time, have found a positive relationship between SNAP use, nutrient levels, dietary quality, and, in turn, health status. There are some unexplained relationships. There are some things that warrant further study. There are basic principles and notions regarding poverty, low educational attainment, obesity.
Further, you sustain circular commentary without an end goal. Rather than discussing what to do next, or an effective means of actually implementing change, or how this impacts your individual community and what you would like to see and how you would go about educating, or learning, or effecting some sort of change, you keep repeating the same nonsense.
Harping on the pathology of the poor, well, it's starting to become quite clear, that maybe it is time for some within this thread to introspectively review your need to do so, especially if you make no concerted effort outside of this thread, or forum, to effect meaningful change.
She can't post anything peer-reviewed article, let alone a right wing think tank article, confirming her conclusions. It's her MO to just copy and paste over and over.
44% of adult SNAP participants are obese. Is it your contention that they aren't overeating?
No, it's my contention there are several factors involved in contributing to obesity among low income groups, both government and non-government assisted groups.
You can keep copying and pasting.... but no one else agrees with your narrow conclusions. Like, not even the other right wingers....
No, it's my contention there are several factors involved in contributing to obesity among low income groups, both government and non-government assisted groups.
Those two groups' obesity rates are vastly different:
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
They are different. Not sure if "vastly" is something you can quantify academically. It should be real easy to find a peer reviewed article or at least a right wing think tank article to corroborate your conclusions.....
Why are you having trouble finding someone or some group to corroborate it?
They are different. Not sure if "vastly" is something you can quantify academically.
In this case, we can. SNAP participants have a 33.3% higher obesity rate than higher income earners, while income-eligible nonparticipants' obesity rate is only 6.7% higher than that of higher income earners. That's about a 5-fold difference:
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
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.