I'm a food addict, and a former fat-ass (I've lost 90 pounds), so I actually know a little bit about the subject here.

The corelation between fat and economic problems would be fourfold:

1. Stress. Cortisol is not just some gimmick that they use to push bullshit "weight loss" products on cable... It really is something that your body will produce more of if you are under stress... and that will help your body put on fat and keep it. Worrying about finances tend to increase stress, which increases cortisol. While most kids aren't involved in the family finances, if Mom and Dad are stressed out, then the kid usually gets stressed as well.

2. Sleep. If you don't get enough sleep, you are fatigued (duh), which means you have a lower metabolism (yea!)! At the same time, your body will react by stimulating your cravings. So you'll crave high energy foods constantly, and have a lower metabolism all day. If Mom and Dad are constantly stressed about money, it's likely that one of them will work later or take odd jobs, and its very likely the stress level of the house could easily reduce the ability for young kids to sleep... So this is another factor.

3. Food quality! This, of course, is the biggest factor. There is a reason that the lower income quintiles have a MUCH higher instance of obesity than the higher income quintiles. The best things you can eat are fish, fat-free dairy, low-fat grilled chicken, raw nuts, some whole grains, and of course all the fresh veggies and fruit that you need to fill out your calorie profile... The CHEAP available foods are usually fried, high glycemic load starches, and fatty low-quality cuts of meat... with maybe some over-boiled canned veggies (yuck) to add green stuff that kids won't eat...

4. Vitamins and suppliments. I take a total of ~2.00/day in vitamins and suppliments (multi-vitamin, calcium, magnesium, fish-oil (~2000 mg DHA+EPA), and glucosimine; as well as taking 3 fat-free whey protein shakes/day (~2.25/day in whey powder, and another 0.50/day in kefir)

3 &4 conclusion: When I began my healthy lifestyle, even though my calorie consumption dropped at least 1500+ calories a day, the amount I spent on consumption overall probably increased by at least 7 bucks/day... The healthy stuff just costs more.

5. Gym membership... While technically not needed to maintain a reasonably healthy lifestyle, it is HARD to just force yourself to excersise for 1-2 hours a day just on your own... The gym has been a godsend for me, well worth the 40.00/month... but there are a lot of families that couldn't throw down another 40.00/month.

No, families getting poorer should worsen the obesity epidemic... unless we start subsidizing healthy living then economic concerns should reasonably worsen the problem.

Sorry, originally I grouped "3" & "4" as the same problem... but decided that they weren't really the same, and I forgot to fix the introduction.

Oops. :)

Tundra, excellent points regarding low-income and eating/living healthy.

What angers me is when people claim it is just because they're not educated and 'making poor choices'. It's extremely difficult to shop the perimeter of the supermarket (what nutritionists recommend) on a very limited budget. I've tried. Whole fresh veggies and decent meat is just more expensive.

As far as a gym membership goes, that's the first thing off the list when people have to cut back around here. I'd also add that if you live in a rural area as I do, then just getting to the gym on a regular basis in gas $$ is too expensive.

Thankfully, walking is free, or close to it in cheap sneakers.

But that really doesn't cut it. Jogging, running, wind-sprints, push-ups, crunches, etc... These are what it really takes to stave off the celulite... All of which really are free, but again, it's tough to sit down at home and do 500 crunches or something. At the gym, everyone else is gutting it out, so you have the peer-pressure/social motivation helping when you start to flag... And weight training is just flat-out fun for me, while dozens of various push-ups and pull-ups get boring.

:)

That said, I had to consider renewing my membership quite carefully when the contract expired... Money is tight right now, and the fresh veggies are killing my bank account. (but keeping my waist smaller.)

I'm considering nude-modeling to get enough money to keep my diet healthy. (this is not a joke). I started out weighing over 270 with a 52 inch waist... I cannot consider relaxing my health... The alternative is frankly disgusting.

Point 3 is empirically incorrect (although I agree with 1 for sure). Basically the only way fast and unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food is if you compare the costs of 100 cal of fast food to 100 cal of healthy food. However, this argument is a little disingenuous.
It would take 6 pounds of carrots to equal the number of calories in one fast food meal. Likewise it would take 1.5 pounds of couscous. But comparing food based on calories means nothing. Different foods have different levels of satiety or fullness per calorie. So, I could it maybe eat 200 cals of couscous and 200 cals of vegetables obtaining both fullness and maximized nutrition. And if I wanted to maintain a constant weight I would eat a healthy fat source like olive oil or avocado as well.

If you wanted a healthy diet with protein, fiber, omega-3 fatty acids... it is quite easy to come up with an affordable alternative to salmon and chicken. The problem is 1) people lack the time or knowledge to care about what they eat 2) people use food as an anti-depressant or reward 3) culture norms are often unhealthy but hard to change (think soul food). The solution however, is not to subsidize "good" food, this would make people strictly worse off. Instead we need to address the root causes (anxiety, lack of knowledge).

It is also the case that in many poor and segregated neighborhoods, there may not be a food perimeter to shop. Specifically, research shows that if you live in a poor (and segregated neighborhood), you are far more likely to have convenience stores in your neighborhood and less likely to have supermarkets with an actual produce aisle. The term "food deserts" has been coined to describe this phenomenon.

Such arguments have been made many times... It goes like this:

I could eat a Mcdonalds double cheesburger combo with large fries for ~5.00.

Or... I could cook a 1/2 lb of boneless, skinless chicken breast (2.00), steam a lb of fresh brocoli (2.00), and have a cup of black beans (0.30), with a glass of water.

Looking at the above, 1 option costs ~5.00 (whatever it costs now, I haven't been to a McDonalds in years), while the other costs ~4.30... So the health food is clearly cheaper!

Bullshit.

The McDonalds option takes 5 minutes, while the other takes 30...

Like to like would be the unhealthy option of 1/2 lb of "ready to bake chicken nuggets" (0.50), a third of a box of store-brand Macaroni and Cheeze (0.10), and a side of home-cooked fries (0.20)... and a glass of store-brand soda (0.10)So the CHEAP unhealthy option is about 90 cents, while the CHEAP healthy option is ~4.50...

If you want fast, you have the McDonalds, vs the Weight Watcher menu at Applebees (~10.00/plate).

It's just more expensive to try to eat healthy.

I haven't heard it, but it makes sense.

I live in suburbia - in a home I can barely afford. Within four miles of me there are 6 super-sized supermarkets, one super-Walmart, and a large farmer's market.

I can generally find something to eat...

But my friends that live downtown will often stop by a supermarket or the farmers market whenever they visit me, just because there are more choices of better quality foods... These are friends that live in the university area of downtown, not the ghetto... but even still they have very few choices for quality foods.

I remember in my college days we mostly ate mac and cheeze, but we still had some choices at the local stores - we just couldn't afford them.

I also have to say that there's an assumption here: obese people are eating fast, prepackaged food; thin people are not. Never mind the obviously tenuous thin = healthy idea; there's ample evidence that we're pretty much all eating poorly, statistically speaking. Not across the board, and not completely, obviously, but it's definitely a mistake to assume that fat people/poor people/whatever aren't making good choices while everyone else is living on carrot sticks and brown rice. Some people don't get massively obese - many of them are getting sicker and sicker, to be sure - but you wouldn't know it by the number on the scale.

You are right in stating that it is inherently unfair to assume that the non-obese people are eating good healthy foods. This is an unreasonable assumption.

However, I will not concede that it is an unreasonable assumption that the obese people are generally not eating healthy. If a person is eating good and healthy foods and doing moderate excercise... then they won't be obese. (I can understand a person being "overweight", but not medically "obese".)

Regardless of the assumptions, there is the hard-core economic FACT that living healthy is considerably more expensive on a calorie-by-calorie basis... so a person who is struggling economically is far more likely to be restricted to less healthy food choices then one who is well off.

I'm saying that it is more expensive to survive and eat healthy foods that keep you trim and lean, then it is to survive and eat unhealthy foods that make you fat... So the premise that "maybe the economic slowdown is keeping people thinner", is just plain bullshit.

:)

From what I can tell, the problems are 1) people WANT junk food, and 2) people don't know how to cook.

For example:

Flash-frozen veggies: 4 bags for $6

Bag of black beans: $1.50

1 lb crappy stew meat: $3

1 bag brown rice: $3

1 bag bacon ends: $2

1 bunch of bananas/bag of navel oranges: $3

Now, admittedly, by the end of the week, you might be pretty tired of stir fry and black bean stew, but that is a full dose of vitamins, minerals and calories for dinners for 4 for a week. Throw in $.50 for a piece of fresh ginger, and it will make the stir fry damn tasty. The meat is fatty, but you only use a little bit; it is for flavour. Poor people have been using meat as flavouring for millenia, it is only recently that we have considered ourselves entitled to it as a main dish.

You just have to learn to stretch. One roaster chicken and some potatos and carrots will make a decadent dinner once, and then some awesome chicken noodle soup the next day.

Our problem isn't eating like poor people. It is eating like poor Americans.

Freki

"You just have to learn to stretch. One roaster chicken and some potatos and carrots will make a decadent dinner once, and then some awesome chicken noodle soup the next day."

The American poor people I know, certainly know how to do this. We don't eat meat at every meal, and uh yeah, we know it's used as flavoring. We've been making split pea soup with ham/bacon for flavoring for a couple hundred years in my community.

But, the fact remains that it is largely, yes, a lot more expensive to eat healthy fresh veggies and protein on a regular basis as opposed to starch and carbohydrates. I'm not talking McD's (restaurant meals of any type get cut out of a truly low income diet first), I'm talking about noodles, low-cost bread etc. that poor people eat to stretch their food dollars. Rice and beans are cheap and healthy, so it can be done. Just not with fresh protein and veggies.

And try and feed a family of four for more than two days on one roast chicken, some carrots and potatoes. Even with soup the next day, the family of four is hungry with no food on day 3. Not realistic.

I always use canned beans... not because I can't cook them (all it takes is soaking them for a day and then letting them simmer until done), but because I just don't have the time...

Ditto with many of the other options for cheapening the menu.

If I can't cook it and eat it in 30 minutes, you've lost me.

That's a big part of the problem as well... The poor used to have one working partner and one full-time homemaker. Now they have two working parents, usually at least one having a part-time second job... You simply don't have the option of taking the truly cheap healthy route very often.

But I will concede I could probably eat a little cheaper and still maintain my health level... I'm just not, at this point, willing to concede the time.

:)

"But that really doesn't cut it. Jogging, running, wind-sprints, push-ups, crunches, etc... These are what it really takes to stave off the celulite... All of which really are free, but again, it's tough to sit down at home and do 500 crunches or something."

Sure it cuts it. That is if you're not trying to be a nude model and just get the recommended 1/2 to 1 hr of exercise a day like me. (I'm not disparaging you here, I'm just saying it's all relative according to your priorities)

Not all of us worry about celulite. It really doesn't take a gym membership to exercise. That's a luxury.

Crockpot. Slow cooker. Whatever you want to call it. Good healthy meals, including vegan if that's your thing (not mine). Slice and dice the night before, refrigerate, put it in the crock pot to cook all day while working. "Making supper" now consists of making some rice (basmati -- under 20), setting the table, tossing a salad.

I live and die by mine (I now own 3). I've worked shift work for 20 years now and would have lost my mind if it wasn't for the slow cooker.