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.
It's possible they are eating the wrong kinds of foods and also not staying fit and active - possibly from working 2 jobs and time to cook healthy meals or exercise.
For example, eating hotdogs and french fries and donuts. These foods are cheaper, but a steady diet of such foods is more likely to result in obesity.
I'll give you 5% for the total that apply here. The other 95% well..
Apparently not. There's a DISTINCT difference in obesity rates among the poor who receive food stamps, and the poor who don't.
From the Huffington Post article linked in the OP:
And, apparently yes. The following quote I utilized, was taken from a famous research article cited close to 2,000 times in the research world. Written by esteemed public health researchers and epidemiologists involved in the study of obesity and disparities in diet and health, from the University Washington.
Not the Huffington Post.
The highest rates of obesity occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. That's a fact. A legitimate one.
"The study found no significant differences in nutrient intakes and overall diet."
In laymen terms, their use of "study" is not the controlled, public health oriented-study out in the field, examining the factors at play. Their "study" was taking a small snippet of subject-to-biases NHANES survey interview data.
The key thing, which you copied for me, was, the above quote. No significant differences. No effect found. No correlation. Nothing more than you'd find by chance out in the real world.
That's all that's needed to end this nonsense thread.
NPR did a segment a year or two ago on Detroit where a farmer's market was setup in the inner city where abandoned land was put to use to grow foodstuffs. The produce was offered for sale to the locals so they could eat healthy but it was found the locals did not purchase because they did not know how to cook the offered produce so the majority of the customers were the more affluent folks living outside these neighborhoods who would travel to the market to purchase.
One would think that would be a common attitude among those that are given money. Why learn to cook and take time to cook when you've got enough in food stamps to buy ready-to-eat stuff.
And, apparently yes. The following quote I utilized, was taken from a famous research article cited close to 2,000 times in the research world. Written by esteemed public health researchers and epidemiologists involved in the study of obesity and disparities in diet and health, from the University Washington.
Not the Huffington Post.
The highest rates of obesity occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. That's a fact. A legitimate one.
Disregard the USDA's data as you wish.
You know... the USDA... the government entity that actually administers the food stamps program.
"The study found no significant differences in nutrient intakes and overall diet."
In laymen terms, their use of "study" is not the controlled
The USDA begs to differ:
Quote:
"Controlling for economic and demographic factors -- in other words, comparing SNAP recipients only to non-recipients with similar backgrounds and income levels -- the study found no significant differences in nutrient intakes and overall diet. But SNAP recipients were still more likely to be obese, 46 percent compared with 36 percent."
You know... the USDA... the government entity that actually administers the food stamps program.
I'm not disregarding the USDA data, I'm actually utilizing it and applying it in the context of this discussion, (and providing examples of published, peer-reviewed articles that use SNAP-specific data to show its benefits)--but, to elaborate on this topic, I am also putting the highly cited facts (regarding obesity and poverty), into the context of the entire field of research regarding public health, obesity, inequality, and poverty. Especially because it's quite a complex topic, and particularly for those that may not understand all of the intricacies of the cumulative effects of a life in poverty, the importance of confounding factors, and, the countless factors that contribute to obesity that I outlined in an earlier post (i.e., genetics, activity, environment, stress, etc.).
The CDC conducts NHANES, not the USDA. NHANES is larger health-oriented interview, which asked individuals about their participation in SNAP (also subject to bias), and asked them a subset of questions (self-report, subject to recall), reading their health behaviors and dietary intake, amongst other things. The UDSA did not conduct its own study specific to SNAP use, and all SNAP participants, that's not what this article is stating. All this article was based upon was the use of a subset of questions from a self-selected group of self-reported SNAP participants, and non-participants regarding their recall of dietary intake from the day prior.
"Controlling for economic and demographic factors -- in other words, comparing SNAP recipients only to non-recipients with similar backgrounds and income levels -- the study found no significant differences in nutrient intakes and overall diet. But SNAP recipients were still more likely to be obese, 46 percent compared with 36 percent."
It's not the USDA that did the analysis, it's Mathematica if you really want to get technical.
You're not understanding--this was not a study originating with the USDA, out in the field, a study of all SNAP recipients, and not the traditional as-best-as-possible-controlled study out in the field, (i.e., randomized, prospective cohort), in which you would focus on a particular variable or two. This was a larger scale survey conducted by the CDC, and the USDA (via Mathematica) is examining descriptives and analyzing some of the survey data from their desks (I'll give you credit, I didn't realize there was a larger report from Mathematica, I just found that online).
However, to reiterate, their desk-level analysis did not find any significant effect based upon the data they were provided via NHANES. That's the whole point. They did not find any significant effect that would demonstrate that the use of food stamps causes obesity. They cannot assign cause, and, with that, they found no effect to even demonstrate a correlation. Lastly, because of the design, because you cannot assign causality, you cannot generalize any of this to the entire SNAP population. That's another important piece important to recognize.
Alright. Here we go again. Let's see if anyone will take me up on this. I asked for one week last time, and everyone failed. This time, I give you $196 for one person, for an entire month, breakfast, lunch, dinner. Let's see what you come up with. (Keep in mind that the $196 is in an area that has rather high food prices...I know, I lived there, and I know what people got on food stamps...so if I mark your pricing differently, it's because that's what it cost in that area.)
To give you an idea of the price of food:
Chicken $1.99/lb
Milk $3.99
5 lb bag potatoes $6.99
Loaf of white bread $1.29
hot dogs (8) $1.39
Beef LOL, don't even think about it
Pork $2.69/lb
Forget fish, it's not happening
Tomatoes $2.39/lb (not kidding)
Strawberries $6.99/lb
Oranges $1.39/lb
Bananas $.79/lb (if on sale, let's pretend it lasts all month)
There, that should give you some idea of the pricing that you're working with....that is, if anyone wants to put their money where their mouth is - those who say it's easily affordable to eat totally healthy on food stamps. One person. $196. Healthy food. Remember, no starches.
You liberals amaze me. Poor people aren't sitting around cooking grains for hours or baking their own breads. They are making poor choices to eat cheap easy-to-heat-up food just like they are making poor choices in other aspects of their life. Those of us that are productive can afford a high quality healthy bread. Those of you who are unproductive and poor are eating wonder bread. Yes, grinding grains and baking your own bread can be cheaper... but at what cost? Several hours of time. It's not practical for poor people who are working 2 jobs because they didn't get an education.
Wake up and go to school. You will learn to do proper analysis instead of just quoting random articles from a Google search.
Exactly, it is an economic cost rather than price issue. It may be cheaper to bake bread, steam fresh veggies and cook fresh meats but time wise they cannot.
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.
