Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 07-26-2015, 12:38 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,787 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Are you trying to fool us to think yout actually care about their well being?
Why not? Healthier people are more productive, and their health care costs are significantly less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2015, 12:40 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,098,568 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's actually really simple. The NIH nails it...

"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."

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/publ...ty/aim_hwt.pdf

Research Behind the Body Weight Planner

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 12:41 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,098,568 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why not? Healthier people are more productive, and their health care costs are significantly less.
So then you don't have an issue with food assistance in principle, just in it's current implementation? That's where I stand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,193,324 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 01:11 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,098,568 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 01:47 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,787 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
But you haven't proven they are actually overeating.... Just that 75% are receiving redundant services.
44% of adult SNAP participants are obese. Is it your contention that they aren't overeating?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 01:49 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,098,568 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
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....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 02:03 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,787 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
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:

Obesity Rates:
SNAP participants: 40%
Income-eligible nonparticipants: 32%
Higher income nonparticipants: 30%

"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)."

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...10-Summary.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 02:41 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,098,568 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Those two groups' obesity rates are vastly different:

Obesity Rates:
SNAP participants: 40%
Income-eligible nonparticipants: 32%
Higher income nonparticipants: 30%

"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)."

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...10-Summary.pdf
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2015, 03:19 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,787 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
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:

Obesity Rates:
SNAP participants: 40%
Income-eligible nonparticipants: 32%
Higher income nonparticipants: 30%

"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)."

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...10-Summary.pdf
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top