Often the poor are fat because healthy food is more expensive. So yes, scarcity of healthy food is linked to poverty.
Nah, I think it really comes down to a mix of:
1. Many poorer people have jobs with longer/more awkward hours, and it's easier to buy unhealthy food in a rush/at an inconvenient time. Your local greengrocers/butchers shop/whatever likely closes at about 5PM whereas the corner shop stays open till the wee hours of the morning/doesn't close at all. And if you're in a rush, unhealthy food is often quicker to prepare/sold prepared based on whether you're talking microwave dinners or fast food.
2. Many poorer areas are food deserts, or at least have a lack of decent shops. For instance, over where I currently live, there are about 4 different supermarkets, local grocery shops, butcher's shops, bakeries, fishmongers, etc and every other kind of place to buy food you can imagine.
This means it's somewhat convenient to buy something healthy at almost any time of day.
On the other hand, if your only choices in walking distance are a corner shop, petrol station or pound store, the choices for healthy food are a fair bit less, and its more convenient to buy something unhealthy than travel to the shops elsewhere.
I did work with one family who was very concerned about eating healthy, but they would tend to buy the absolutely most expensive food they could find thinking it was healthier and then running out of food halfway through the month.
I'm not saying there aren't people who buy unhealthy food because they can't find healthy food, but I see a lot more people hampered by poor life skills leading too poor food choices than grocery store closing hours.
However, I still think your point is valid, because it's not just the food items themselves. You need time to prepare them, plus a stressful life puts psychological pressure (which is real and not "imagined") on your brain for swift and easy rewards. So if you don't just look at the stuff on the plate, but see "eating" as a system consisting of sooo much more, the entire context, I think that's a big part of what in the end indeed makes bad food more expensive.
I almost forgot to mention a possibly even bigger part: When you live in poor areas availability of certain foods is vastly limited, and availability of bad foods is through the roof. Try shopping in supermarkets in poor areas and compare it to a wealthy suburb supermarket.
Granted nobody is eating like that but 1.50$ for 3 servings of vegetables per day is 550$ per year which really is significant for them.
PS: This is assuming they even have access to low cost veggies.
Given obesity rates, the problem is too much energy. After all, one part of calling for more vegetable consumption is so that people lower their energy intake. Example: https://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org/eating-vegetable... (the number of articles on cutting calories by eating more vegetables is uncountable)
Just as an aside, a short excerpt from a bio.chem course that shows the connection between high energy intake and obesity: https://youtu.be/rTR-Ev3hj4c
The link between poverty and obesity in the modern world is well established. That means you can hardly point to a lack of energy consumption. I added a video to my comment, from a bio.chem course, that shows a common pathway how high energy state leads to obesity.
Note that I can't and don't want to (and don't need to) show very much here, only provide an argument against what I think is a strange argument from @Retric about "not enough energy in veggies". Energy is not the problem (the psychological feeling of "I have no energy", which may be more prevalent in poor people (I don't know), is not the same as a low energy level).
I doubt the considerations you mention actually happen, or when then it's not widespread. I think it's automatic behaviors rather than conscious choices, and I doubt most people think about their foods energy content (given that a large majority of people, including and for some groups even especially among the poor, consume too much of it). As I see it, the energy claim doesn't fit the available data - which shows an excess, not a lack. That's why I think explanations as well as actions have to aim somewhere else - or would you say we should provide even more energy in food (especially aimed at poor people or not does not matter, since obesity affects all groups to varying degrees).
Another interesting read might be (okay, although it does not say anything actually new): https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/1/6/4690070
The preference for low cost per calorie foods makes it easy to over eat when your body is missing some nutrient. Which can create offial feedback loops. But, the simple "how do I eat for 20$ this week" is IMO a factor at the individual and cultural level that should not be ignored.
> The preference for low cost per calorie foods makes it easy to over eat when your body is missing some nutrient.
Exactly.
If you agree with me, what's your point? I argued against your very specific - and very silly - argument in your first reply, which makes no sense whatsoever and is completely made up and artificial. See my response!
Please stop making stuff up and reply to what I actually wrote or not at all. I hate it when people make stuff up and pretend to "counter" my comment when they completely ignore it and make stuff up.
You can become obese eating rice and beans for less than the 1.50$ per day. Morbid obesity on cheap calorie dense food is cheaper than a healthy diet. This trend continues if you look at fast food or any quick options.
So, no being fat is not cost prohibitive, but eating veggies is. Further, as I said if you eat empty calories like Purple Drank you still need nutrition and again eating calorie dense foods and extra calories costs less than veggies.
This has social consequences as fewer people eat healthy foods they become less accessible, and culture adapted to eating cheap means all food options are high calorie.
And beans are super nutritious.
Thank you very much!
I think I DO understand your argument, but I have the suspicion that you fail at understanding my very first reply already, which sums it up quite nicely. Your "argument" is none because it addresses an issue that does not exist. You countered something that you yourself invented, an issue that does not exist.
Please, just read my original reply. This is just plain silly: As I already said, if you don't care one bit what I wrote, why did you (and still do) bother to reply? Again and again?
Do you know any poor people? People that grew up in poor families? Just like everyone else when overweight their body wants to maintain that weight. That's going to take food, and in some cases a lot of it which is a real cost.
Eating cheap calorie dense food can cover based nutrition requirements. It's not optimal for health, but it's cheap, really really cheap.
Poor people also indulge in nutrition free food like soda when they can afford it, but then they still need to cover nutrition and the cheapest way to do that is high caloric foods. After a while they need to eat just as much to maintain that weight. But, at no point in that viscous cycle are veggies more than a garnish.
Would a lifetime of 3 servings of veggies a day help avoid weight gain while allowing for some indulgences? Of course, but it would also cost significantly more especially when raising a family which starts up the cycle again.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
This fixation on the idea "people eat only vegetables!" is a fabrication of YOUR mind. You keep bringing it up. Are you sick? Do you need professional help? I'm a little concerned for you my little stupid friend. You can't tell what's only in your head from what what's outside? How about you stick to what I wrote and stop posting utter nonsense and made-up bullshit?