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.
Turns out the providing so much "free" food to people actually makes them more likely to be obese than the rest of the population. Who would have thought?
Even "poor people" who don't get food stamps are more likely to be obese than "higher-income" people. So much for the "we can't let the children starve" argument that liberals keep parroting.
This is because the food that they can afford that will last them the longest is pkg. food, not meat, veggies or fruit. I have a friend who is homeless on the streets of LA. He was thin when he started out and now he says he is fat. What little money he gets she spends on food that will go further.
This is because the food that they can afford that will last them the longest is pkg. food, not meat, veggies or fruit. I have a friend who is homeless on the streets of LA. He was thin when he started out and now he says he is fat. What little money he gets she spends on food that will go further.
Exactly, and it explains why Walmart places counters with donuts and chips 4 feet away from produce. Which is going to fill your gut faster? Not to mention the problem the poor frequently have with limited access to cooking or storing food. The poor women I worked with in Reno who weren't homeless usually lived in weekly motels- no hot plates allowed, so they were limited to a mini fridge and microwave. Try making a nice pot of stew in that situation
This is because the food that they can afford that will last them the longest is pkg. food, not meat, veggies or fruit. I have a friend who is homeless on the streets of LA. He was thin when he started out and now he says he is fat. What little money he gets she spends on food that will go further.
That's exactly why providing overlapping and duplicate free food benefits to the poor is so deletrious to their health. Food stamps increase obesity. I posted the study finding exactly such. Food stamp recipients' BMI rose the fastest while they were on food stamps.
That's exactly why providing overlapping and duplicate free food benefits to the poor is so deletrious to their health. Food stamps increase obesity. I posted the study finding exactly such. Food stamp recipients' BMI rose the fastest while they were on food stamps.
Nope. You're taking your own theory, and assigning cause, and connecting it to an outcome. And now you're generalizing too. Even the author of your own article you posted disagrees with your overall agenda, and, leaves the article on a positive note, highlighting the importance of public health interventions (like Farmers Markets providing access to fresh vegetables and fruit) to work in combination with Food Stamps.
Your article was dated from 2009, on an OSU archive page. That was six years ago. I mean, really? I can pull 20 recent, (meaning year 2015), peer-reviewed, published articles from PubMed, (which I suggested you to do too since you are so very into this topic), that counter your backward theory, isolate variables, and, highlight positive findings studying SNAP. I've already included a few pages ago. You just ignore those.
And, if you included ALL of the bullet points from the USDA (NHANES) study summary, rather than just the ones you hand picked to try to support your overeating agenda, you would find this:
"Male SNAP participants had a lower usual calorie intake than higher income nonparticipants. There were no differences observed among females." Translation: Male SNAP recipients are taking in (eating) less calories than the income-eligible non recipients, and higher income non-recipients. Between the three female categories, there were NO DIFFERENCES in caloric intake observed among females."
Other things the USDA (NHANES) found that demonstrate nutrient and caloric intakes:
-- Both low-income groups were less likely to have adequate intake of vitamins and minerals than higher income individuals.
--SNAP participants were more likely than higher income nonparticipants to have usual intakes of saturated fat that were consistent with the Dietary Guidelines recommendation.
-- SNAP participants were less likely than higher income nonparticipants to consume sweets and desserts, salty snacks, and added fat and oils.
Exactly, and it explains why Walmart places counters with donuts and chips 4 feet away from produce. Which is going to fill your gut faster? Not to mention the problem the poor frequently have with limited access to cooking or storing food. The poor women I worked with in Reno who weren't homeless usually lived in weekly motels- no hot plates allowed, so they were limited to a mini fridge and microwave. Try making a nice pot of stew in that situation
Yes, it also speaks to poverty and what it looks like throughout America. Levels of poverty, and access.
Thinking about some of my own personal observations through work:
In Alabama, in some of the poorest census tracts in the state, there were no full-fledge supermarkets. The one in close proximity in most cases, was just a make-shift corner store that accepted EBT. The corner store (I visited) was dark, dingy, full of processed food. Residents explained to me they would need to take a cab or have a friend bring them across town (about a 10 minute ride) to a legitimate supermarket, like Albertsons.
In New Orleans, throughout the ninth ward, it was similar, mainly corner stores. The main supermarket in the area (before Katrina) closed. In other regions of the City, discount supermarkets were more accessible.
In Miami, throughout several low-income neighborhoods, the families had relatively easy access to a Walmart. It wasn't a Super Walmart, but, it was a step above.
In Baltimore, it depended on what part of the City you lived within. College kids that were income poor at one of the local universities, had access to a variety of food on and immediately off campus. West Baltimore, most of the supermarkets closed up except for a discount supermarket, that I visited often--their version of healthy fruit was a few milk cartons of rotting produce. It was disgusting. In East Baltimore, you could go a few neighborhoods without even finding a supermarket. Like Alabama, you would need to drive a good 20-25 minutes to get to larger shopping centers up north where you would find a legitimate supermarket or even a Walmart type store.
Homeless residents, also receive food stamps. They are transient. Like you noted, it's a rarity to have a place to actually cook (or even microwave) food. Veterans receive food stamps too, and, some may have varying levels to access (and mobility), especially if they are disabled.
Public housing residents, can also receive food stamps--some housing is located in segregated, remote locations making it more difficult to access healthy (let alone fresh) foods. I did work with a woman at HUD who actually linked a supermarket to the complex, and, together residents could order food online (like a PeaPod system), and have it delivered for a small fee. It helped the disabled, the mobility challenged, it provided a higher quality source of food, and it gave business to the local supermarket willing to help his community.
In New York City, the poor live alongside the wealthy. Anyone, via a wonderful public transportation system providing, provides greater choice, and access to so many different types of stores and markets.
There are so many examples. This is precisely why this discussion (involving things like access, food assistance, weight, and poverty, the driver), is so complex and multi-faceted.
Nope. You're taking your own theory, and assigning cause, and connecting it to an outcome. And now you're generalizing too. Even the author of your own article you posted disagrees with your overall agenda, and, leaves the article on a positive note, highlighting the importance of public health interventions (like Farmers Markets providing access to fresh vegetables and fruit) to work in combination with Food Stamps.
Wrong. The same people were studied before, during, and after SNAP participation, looking at longitudinal data. The finding:
"Additional evidence of food stamps’ role in weight gain came when the researchers looked at how people’s BMI changed before, during and after they were on food stamps.
Results showed BMI increased over all three periods, but increased the most when participants were on food stamps."
Wrong. The same people were studied before, during, and after SNAP participation, looking at longitudinal data. The finding:
"Additional evidence of food stamps’ role in weight gain came when the researchers looked at how people’s BMI changed before, during and after they were on food stamps.
Results showed BMI increased over all three periods, but increased the most when participants were on food stamps."
YOU CANNOT ASSIGN CAUSE. Jagorsky even said it in the article.
BMI increased for everyone. You're grasping at straws. Jagorsky has no way to prove cause. He even says this in his article. I can e-mail you the entire research article if you'd like to read it, its limitations section, and findings since you are so interested.
And, don't you dare exclude my bullet point you aren't touching because it makes you look silly:
THE USDA FOUND NO DIFFERENCES IN CALORIC INTAKE BETWEEN THE THREE GROUPS!
SNAP RECIPIENTS AREN'T OVEREATING IN THAT SPECIFIC STUDY!
MEN EVEN HAD LOWER CALORIC INTAKES IF THEY RECEIVED SNAP! LOWER! LOWER!
YOUR WHOLE THEORY HAS BEEN PUT TO REST FOR NHANES!
Now, if I was like you, I'd say, WELL, Jagorsky found his group had a higher BMI! Jagorsky's data wins. No. No one's data wins. Because no one's data is generalizable to all populations (let alone any populations), especially if you're conducting a study that is limited in design type. And, the data must be put in context, who was studied, where, for how long, what type of study, was it a survey, was it a field-based study, did it include an intervention, what did it control for, what was its hypothesis, what does previous research state, what did it find, what are recommendations.
Yes, it also speaks to poverty and what it looks like throughout America. Levels of poverty, and access.
Thinking about some of my own personal observations through work:
In Alabama, in some of the poorest census tracts in the state, there were no full-fledge supermarkets. The one in close proximity in most cases, was just a make-shift corner store that accepted EBT. The corner store (I visited) was dark, dingy, full of processed food. Residents explained to me they would need to take a cab or have a friend bring them across town (about a 10 minute ride) to a legitimate supermarket, like Albertsons.
In New Orleans, throughout the ninth ward, it was similar, mainly corner stores. The main supermarket in the area (before Katrina) closed. In other regions of the City, discount supermarkets were more accessible.
In Miami, throughout several low-income neighborhoods, the families had relatively easy access to a Walmart. It wasn't a Super Walmart, but, it was a step above.
In Baltimore, it depended on what part of the City you lived within. College kids that were income poor at one of the local universities, had access to a variety of food on and immediately off campus. West Baltimore, most of the supermarkets closed up except for a discount supermarket, that I visited often--their version of healthy fruit was a few milk cartons of rotting produce. It was disgusting. In East Baltimore, you could go a few neighborhoods without even finding a supermarket. Like Alabama, you would need to drive a good 20-25 minutes to get to larger shopping centers up north where you would find a legitimate supermarket or even a Walmart type store.
Homeless residents, also receive food stamps. They are transient. Like you noted, it's a rarity to have a place to actually cook (or even microwave) food. Veterans receive food stamps too, and, some may have varying levels to access (and mobility), especially if they are disabled.
Public housing residents, can also receive food stamps--some housing is located in segregated, remote locations making it more difficult to access healthy (let alone fresh) foods. I did work with a woman at HUD who actually linked a supermarket to the complex, and, together residents could order food online (like a PeaPod system), and have it delivered for a small fee. It helped the disabled, the mobility challenged, it provided a higher quality source of food, and it gave business to the local supermarket willing to help his community.
In New York City, the poor live alongside the wealthy. Anyone, via a wonderful public transportation system providing, provides greater choice, and access to so many different types of stores and markets.
There are so many examples. This is precisely why this discussion (involving things like access, food assistance, weight, and poverty, the driver), is so complex and multi-faceted.
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.
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.
