Actually, if everyone were to actually, you know, READ Embar's original post, you'd see that Dr. Sturm's study has very little to do with the idea of 'food deserts'.
He used a different data set to see what food outlets were nearby. Dr. Sturm found no relationship between what type of food students said they ate, what they weighed, and the type of food within a mile and a half of their homes.
Note what's NOT said in that quote.
This is a typical conflation. Embar takes two statements, one central to his point, one tangential to his point, and claims that both of them mean his point is correct. This is, of course, not so.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
I'm guilty of going into an Embar thread with the preconvieved notion it's just going to be another attack on either Obama or poor people and figuring out from what angle is the only question.
Partha wrote:Actually, if everyone were to actually, you know, READ Embar's original post, you'd see that Dr. Sturm's study has very little to do with the idea of 'food deserts'.
He used a different data set to see what food outlets were nearby. Dr. Sturm found no relationship between what type of food students said they ate, what they weighed, and the type of food within a mile and a half of their homes.
Note what's NOT said in that quote.
This is a typical conflation. Embar takes two statements, one central to his point, one tangential to his point, and claims that both of them mean his point is correct. This is, of course, not so.
What's not said in the quote? And note that I based my position on more than that study.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
One wonders how people avoided obesity in years gone by. How did others with limited access to easy grocery shopping stay in healthy shape?
I remember visting my great grand parents in Red Cloud, Nebraska. Had another set in Guide Rock, NE. This was in the early 70s. All were trim... well, except for one Gg-paw, who liked pie too much. Very small towns. Very limited shopping, there were no large grocery stores there. Maybe a few hundred in each town. Couple of small country stores. Neither were on a farm and could grow crop, although their yards were larger in size. I specifically remember a rhubarb plant near the side door of one of the house, and Gg-maw admonishing me that just because we ate rhubard pie, I could not eat the plant without getting very sick.
Anyway... sure its a small sample population, but I remember other people in that town too. There was the occasional bulky person, but I saw nothing like the 300 pounders we see today. What's different? A difference in exercise habits? Well... from what I recall, my gg-parents were pretty old, and didn't exercise much. What I DO recall is that both gg-maws made dinner, every night. There were no fast food places in the towns. Dinner was typical midwestern... home baked bread, another starch (usually potatos or some other root, like turnips are parsnips), a green (spinach, collards, some other green) and a protein (usually chicken or pork.. I come from German stock).
The big difference I think I remember is... not much TV. Maybe an hour or two for a favorite night show, but only after chores were done. Certainly no video games or 300+ channels to surf.
I think our obesity issue is due to many things, but not to lack of healthy alternatives. I think it arises from easy fast food, a lifestyle that encourages sedentary entertainment, and a choice to embrace both.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
More people have both an occupation that isn't toiling in the fields while spending their recreation time sitting as well (computers, smart phones and tv's), driving everywhere and add to that massive amounts of overly processed shit. In general people are living much less naturally physical lives and we have sugar in everything. So I think sitting for vocation and recreation (less naturally active lives) coupled with our overly processed sugary SAD diets are the primary culprits making people unhealthy.
Harlowe wrote:More people have both an occupation that isn't toiling in the fields while spending their recreation time sitting as well (computers, smart phones and tv's), driving everywhere and add to that massive amounts of overly processed shit. In general people are living much less naturally physical lives and we have sugar in everything. So I think sitting for vocation and recreation (less naturally active lives) coupled with our overly processed sugary SAD diets are the primary culprits making people unhealthy.
I think that's probably correct.
Now... what part of that is better controlled by conscious choice? Vocation or diet?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:One wonders how people avoided obesity in years gone by. How did others with limited access to easy grocery shopping stay in healthy shape?
One wonders how there were fat people before their was fast food.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Now... what part of that is better controlled by conscious choice? Vocation or diet?
I believe there's a good argument that both are conscious choice, isn't there?
You can blame a lot on urban planning too. Just spent a week in Amsterdam and damn if they weren't a hell of a lot healthier over there, probably in a large part due to virtual elimination of cars for commutes and some serious bicycle infrastructure. Compared to people that get in the car to literally go across the road to the 7-11 in Oz/USA, it all adds up.
Maybe I should have phrased it as "which choice has less complications when made, changing vocation or changing diet/exercise?"
From my perspective, and especially in this economy, changing vocations is very rsiky, if possible at all. In fact, I think "vocation deserts" are more predominant than food deserts.
And I don't think it's urban planning, although that is probably part of it. Mexico is right under the US for obesity, followed by the UK. Very different urban plans in all three of the top countries (US tops the list). At the bottom are S. Korea and Japan.
S. Korea abd Japan share very similiar diets, and and Japan has a very urbanized, white collar workforce, similar to the US (although they too have good urban density). Diet though, I think is the root.
Diet is certainly part of it, but to ignore the existence of food deserts or to downplay how much that can affect one's diet isn't right, either. Both the rural poor and the urban poor face some really bad choices in a lot of cases about where to get their meals and what kind of meals they can get. I live in a town where this is a well known problem - the west side of town just lost another grocery store, leaving just two west of the river and both several miles away from a large portion of the west side populace. Yes, there is bus service, but there's exactly one route that serves the northwest side and one that serves the southwest side where the major roads are, and there's an added burden of travel time because you have to go back downtown to connect to either route. When you're looking at a half hour one way and an hour the other for exactly one reasonable choice when it comes to fresh foods, then I understand why a person with limited transport would give up and go shop at the Walgreen's where Wonder Bread is $3.49 a loaf or some ridiculous price like that and there are no fresh vegetables.
In contrast, there are no less than four megastores within a five mile radius on the 'good' end of town, to say nothing of regular chain groceries and places like Target. I myself can afford the 20 minute trip via car to Woodman's twice a week, so I count myself lucky.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Seems there's very little science to back up the notion of food deserts. No study has found a causal link of lack of access and obesity. Indeed, studies seem to show choice of diet is the culprit of obesity.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Harlowe wrote:More people have both an occupation that isn't toiling in the fields while spending their recreation time sitting as well (computers, smart phones and tv's), driving everywhere and add to that massive amounts of overly processed shit. In general people are living much less naturally physical lives and we have sugar in everything. So I think sitting for vocation and recreation (less naturally active lives) coupled with our overly processed sugary SAD diets are the primary culprits making people unhealthy.
If you are saying that a diet weighted towards processed food and a sedentary lifestyle contribute towards obesity, I agree. So are we all too lazy to change diet and exercise patterns?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Seems there's very little science to back up the notion of food deserts. No study has found a causal link of lack of access and obesity. Indeed, studies seem to show choice of diet is the culprit of obesity.
Those propositions aren't mutually exclusive. The question is what's behind the choice of diet, and whether it's a choice at all.
If there is no choice, as your statement assumes, then we would all eat the same way. We don't. Diet is a choice. People have chosen to change diets. Who was it on this board that made choice to change his eating patterns and lost a ton of weight? The name escapes me now.
Anyway, diet is a choice. Exercise is a choice. The proposition that diet and exercise aren't choices is simply daft.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Not assuming "no choice", although there are plenty papers out there discussing whether diet actually is a choice for some people or a true mental condition. I was more saying the choices people make are influenced by their environment and studies that show "you eat bad, you get fat" are about as useful as studies that show "you put fuel in your car, it runs". The question is the psychological drivers behind the choice of diet and what the triggers are.
