The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Food. We Need Food.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Juaquin Murrieta — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:37:52 -0000

We're hurting. As a people, as a nation, and as individuals. And so one of the things we do is feed our faces with food that we know very well is unhealthy. Because it's there. Because fat tastes very very good, for evolutionary reasons, and so does sugar.

I am personally a comfort-eater, so I don't at all speak from a position of superiority here. When I'm hurting, I eat.

Is this better than drinking or using drugs? Maybe, but not for sure. It's plenty damaging, that much is certain.

It's not all about how Mickey D offers unhealthy food, because no one is standing at the door with a gun forcing me to buy and eat the stuff, even if I really really like french fries. (And I do! Yes!) If people stop buying this crap, depend on it, the fast food joints will stop selling it. It's not all about how most people can't afford healthy food, because most people can, even people without a lot of money. Veggies are really cheap. Healthy food isn't more expensive than unhealthy food. Cheaper, actually. The schools have been handing out the requisite information for three generations, so there's no excuse for not knowing the facts. Poor people are not stupid.

And besides, as TNC rightly points out, not all obese people are poor. Hardly!

Black people, poor people, Latinos, who live in areas without supermarkets and who don't have cars, mostly live on bus lines, at least where I live (California). Those buses go to places with wholesale grocery stores which have produce departments. Grocery carts with little wheels are to be had for very little money.

Not, of course, to mention the obese rich, who don't even have these (bogus) excuses.

I really do not think the obesity epidemic is a figment of anyone's statistical imagination, rosmar. I was a kid in the 1950's, and fat kids were very very rare. Most of them had serious medical problems. It wasn't like every fifth kid!

So if I'm right, if we're fat because we're hurting, why are we hurting? Where is all this pain coming from, which apparently wasn't operative 50 years ago?

I wish I knew.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Juaquin Murrieta — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:12:21 -0000

Very fair.

It's not just the poor. The whole culture has become mouth-centered. Lots of rich people are fat too.

So, what gives here? Is it that there's just too much food available? Or does it go deeper than that?

I'm suspecting deeper problems. A society in which 50% of marriages end in divorce, for example (with the associated confused children, confused adults and economic disasters associated with the same. Only to mention one of many problems.

It's not all about food. We have worse problems.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

PatricktheRogue — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:31:56 -0000

"I had years when I grossed five figures," well, TNC, most of us don't think that's so bad. You just disparaged the incomes of 90% of Americans as if we are all destitute. Of course, I realize most of us don't live in New York either, so I cut you a break. I realize to most New Yorkers (and NorthEasterners generally) the rest of the country in the "fly-over" states only exists in theory, but here, "five figures" isn't necessarily so bad, unless the first number is a 3 or 2.

PTR

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Josh Jasper — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:52:33 -0000

OK, I live in NYC, and I can't think of any neighborhoods that have that problem. Perhaps it's different where you are. I have no idea. It was the same in LA. Heck, even South Central had groceries that were only about 15 minutes away.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with weight. All I'm saying is that as long as you have a fridge with a working freezer, you can probably eat cheaper and better than fast food. I'm sure you can think of people who don't have the time, but don't tell me that they're the majority. I live in a minority neighborhood. I know what people who live here deal with. And I've lived on that little before myself.

I'm done here. Feel free to have the final word if it makes you feel better.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Josh Jasper — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:44:42 -0000

the healthiest thing that you can purchase is SUBWAY, if you are lucky. in a Black neighborhood. driving through poor Latino neighborhoods, I can't say that I see anything different.

Yeah. I live right near Kingsbridge. And there's plenty of decent grocery stores. A bit overpriced, but not much different than a Subway.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

funkasmellic — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:27:10 -0000

Too fattening.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

rosmar — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:31:04 -0000

This rings true for me, and yet I also want to point out that significant, repeated research has shown that most of us seem to hover around a setpoint with our weight (hovering can be within 12-30 pounds or so, depending on one's metabolism). The weight of adopted person has no correlation with the weight of his or her adoptive parents, but is highly correlated with the weight of his or her biological parents. There are exceptions: depending on the weight loss technique, between 4-10% of people can lose weigth and keep it off.

There are a few good books about how the "obesity epidemic" is almost entirely a myth--created by a combination of lowering the standards of what counts as overweight and an average weight gain across the U.S. of about 12 pounds since 1970. (Some of that is probably because we are, on average, older than we used to be, but age doesn't explain all of the weight gain.) Rethinking Thin and Fat Politics are both great.

That said, I know I hit the upper side of my own personal set point whenever I am stressed, and comfort food combined with less time to exercise tend to do it.

(The "obesity epidemic" being a myth doesn't mean that there aren't health problems associated with eating poorly and not getting enough exercise--those problems are well established, and occur in thin people who don't eat well or exercise, too.)

Re: Food. We Need Food.

OG — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:32:15 -0000

OK, does ANYONE know why the "share this" option has been deactivated?

Re: Food. We Need Food.

The Ninja Zombie — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:17:46 -0000

Nuada, the idea of the hardworking poor person is a persistent myth. I'm simply doing my part to dispel that myth.

I'm not sure what you consider illogical about my posts. All I did was cite facts. You claim I generalize, but I did nothing of the sort. I specifically stated that *most* of the poor don't work, and the rest *rarely* work hard. I even cited a source to prove it.

The federal poverty line is a joke. One can earn a salary far above it and still be forced into a very humble lifestyle.

I'm not sure what you mean by "humble", but so what? I'm responding to a post about the poor. Sorry for using the standard meaning of the term. By the way, you should read about the "humble" lifestyle lived by the poor.

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm

If they are lucky, their employers "allow" them to work 40 hours a week or more.

Being unable to work full time was a problem for 3% of the poor (1.1 million people). See the source I previously cited.

Why don't you actually do some research before commenting further? The government collects all sorts of interesting data, and a lot of it is publicly available. Some of it is inconvenient. But no worries, you can simply call the data you dislike "illogical" and "predictable" and then ignore it.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:55:54 -0000

Thanks man. Still a ways to go. Fortunately there are no public photos of my at my worse. Not cute.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:52:32 -0000

I don't disagree with a thing you've said. I don't believe that people have to do anything. I think it helps to understand the context that may be guiding the choices of a large numbers. But I don't believe those choices are etched in stone.

Moreover, I regret that this conversation has focused on poor people. The obesity stats extend way beyond the poor.

The last part of your statement is key. That is the question.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Guest — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:22:32 -0000

NZ -

You are perfectly entitled to post as often as you want, concerning whatever topic Mr. Coates chooses to blog about.

But if I were you, my posts would feature fewer comments about how the poor are lazy and if they worked harder, they wouldn't be poor. As soon as I starting reading this thread, I knew you were going to write a post about how the poor deserve what they get. Do you want to be predictable like that?

But if you must post in such a way, do you have to do it in such an illogical fashion? Must you paint with such a broad brush, generalizing to the point where your words get immediately discounted? After all, I like the idea of this forum having honest, decent conservative voices, so as to avoid an echo chamber effect. (And I’m trying to be relatively inoffensive here as well.)

Consider how poverty is usually determined by the federal government's federal poverty line. The federal poverty line is a joke. One can earn a salary far above it and still be forced into a very humble lifestyle. So forget the poor, talk about the "working poor", the "working class" or the "lower middle class".

Many of these people earn salaries from jobs where there is no possibility of career advancement. So no matter how hard they work, these people would find it a great challenge to ever significant improve their economic standing. If they are lucky, their employers "allow" them to work 40 hours a week or more. As you might know, many employers don't want to be forced to offer employees health insurance, so they pull every trick they can to make their employees "part-time". Of course, that doesn't stop these same employers from scheduling their workers any way they see fit. Such scheduling can come in the form of unpredictability from week to week, or just plain odd hours. Either way, the result is the same; a second job can become impossibility.

To look at it another way, do you think the people who clean public toilets for a living are paid well? (Or any other kind of work most people would characterize as performing “menial tasks”.) Or do you think that they are lazy or that it’s an easy job for fat slackers?

Don't worry though; there is still a way to totally prevent empathizing with those Americans who make up the "lower classes". Simply hold the view that they made "poor life choices". This way, when you wish to heap scorn upon them you will often be right and it will be harder for people to disagree with you. I mean, I still feel empathy for some (but not all) Americans who do end up economically challenged through bad life choices…..but you don't have to.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

ladyfresh — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:50:50 -0000

I appreciate reading about these additional factors not usually delved into when the rants on this issue take off. There is definitely a commonality... humanity to the issue that is usually denied and a dividing line of willpower vs 'lack of' that comes down harshly without taking a look at the system (social-personal-economic-spirtual... not sure) that may possibly bolster that so called will power. This touches on it and i again appreciate it.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

ladyfresh — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:35:55 -0000

This is getting irritating.

You seem to be consistently and majorly missing the point of the original quote and commentary. Maybe it's purposeful, in your world it seems to absolutely inconceivable that poor and middle class people have any sort of reason for being over weight. There apparently is no reason anyone else can come up with that your superself cannot solve for this issue. Since you seem to know so much I suggest you take your all encompassing knowledge to the streets and help those poor folks out instead of battling it in here with your 'their just not doing it 'right' you big dummies' attitude.

Now to get to the 'cheap' aspect you seem to know oh so much about.

Please do tell me 'oh i know how to feed a family of 4 - 2 when the nearest healthy but not affordable market is at least two buses or a bus and a train away and your are working two jobs on alternating schedules(lucky if you have another income also with alternating schedules), the closest market closes a hour after you get out of your commute (has no truly viable fresh fruits or veggies) if you actually leave work on time, leaves you time to cook a meal within 30 mins, but enough time to get your household to bed and help the kids do homework without losing sleep, (without prep on the weekend already precious time which is likely to be filled with overtime or a second job) has the belly full and is done under $25 (oh lets be really generous $40 for the week)' and please note i'm positive i'm missing factors but since you are also oh so positive you can trump and battle all of them (because apparently you have lived through this) while you do that please provide the incentive that is one of the key points of what is being discussed here for a person to do so.

Yes please tell us how to cook "cheap" because cost seems to be the issue that bothers you while other issues (social, emotional some few minor details being mentioned) are clearly being included and finally covered but no lets backtrack and nit pick on what exactly is meant by "cheap"

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Juaquin Murrieta — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:57:45 -0000

Fair enough, and I apologize if I insulted anybody.

Just because Burger King or McDonald's offers fat, unhealthy food does not mean that anyone has to buy it.

You say "What about people who are born into hardship? Who are born into stress and born into eating as a way of ameliorating that stress? Who grow up in an environment where mostly everyone else does the same?"

Well, what about us? We all have choices. Being "born into stress and born into eating as a way of ameliorating that stress" does not necessarily mean we have to unthinkingly buy into that behavior and just go with it.

If enough people, rich and poor, refuse to buy the artery-clogging garbage at Mickey D's, they'll stop selling it. This food isn't really "pleasure" in the fullest sense of that term.

I'm wondering why so many people, rich and poor, cannot think of anything more pleasurable to do with their spare time than eat fatty, unhealthy food. If you walk down the street you can see that an awful lot of people are doing this, but why? Why is this the refuge of choice? Why is this the best thing we can think of to do when we are in emotional pain?

Re: Food. We Need Food.

tano — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:00:00 -0000

Thanks for this post. Obesity is a many faceted problem. But the eating "bad" food as comfort rings very true to me, I do it whenever I'm feeling really blue. For me, Ben&Jerry's or Entenmanns. Because of my background and experiences I exercise regularly and eat a mainly vegetarian, whole foods diet. The occasional night of inhaling 1,500 fatty calories does me little harm. But every time I let myself indulge in this way it reminds me not to make judgments about others eating habits. It does momentarily stave off the terrible blueness and helps me get through the night. I'm thankful for the life experiences and social network which then the next day or two jolt me back to exercise and healthy eating.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

rikyrah — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:38:14 -0000

Have you ever been in a poor neighborhood?

the healthiest thing that you can purchase is SUBWAY, if you are lucky. in a Black neighborhood. driving through poor Latino neighborhoods, I can't say that I see anything different.

but, in Latino neighborhoods, there are fewer food deserts. i see more markets in Latino neighborhoods. not the national brand chains of supermarkets, but localized markets that serve fresh fruits, veggies and meats.

I don't think the ' Black' diet has changed. what has changed is-

1. our ancestors GREW a lot of their own vegetables. they grew them themselves or got it out of a neighbor's garden. a neighbor that didn't used pesticides.

2. our ancestors drank a lot of water. outside of alcohol, they drank water, and maybe iced tea and lemonade on special occasions. there was no consistent consumption of pop.

3. our ancestors walked everywhere. they walked during their daily lives.

4. our ancestors did NOT consume foods full of transfats or high fructose corn syrup.

5. children were given one directive - be in this house when the streetlights come on. that was it, meaning that most children during the summer months, were OUTSIDE doing some sort of physical activity. children had RECESS, sometimes twice a day, AND GYM when we were growing up. children did NOT stay inside all day doing nothing but video games, tv and the computer.

6. fast food portions were SMALLER when we were younger. this has been proven. from fast food to what they serve at the movies, everything was SMALLER when we were younger.

emotional eating is a fact, and can't it explained away with some simple-simon explanation.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Acromion — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:00:16 -0000

TNC I saw that video of you and Andrew and you look fantastic! I totally understand what its like to pack on a few pounds. I had to wear size 33 jeans once and it was awful! Keep workin those rice cakes and arugala and maybe someday you will be as skinny as our prez.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

CrankyOtter — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:53:18 -0000

I had a conversation not two hours before reading this about the importance of a "big" meal as pleasurable ritual in our lives. Too cool that I would log in and find your words paralleling mine but taking a whole different path.

.

Our conversation was about how hard it is to eat many small meals a day instead of big ones. Not just fitting them in, but they always feel like a snack and not like an event. And we humans need event markers in our lives to break the monotony. You remember if you did something before or after dinner, even days later. You don't hang memories on your snacks. (Unless they're particularly delicious snacks that are more special, in some way, than dinner. British Tea with all its ceremony would qualify as an event more than a throwaway snack.)

.

I also feel like I need to have a certain number of bites of something for it to feel substantial. 3 bites is a snack. 20 bites is an entree. But what is 10 bites? And is 20 bites too many? I'm overweight almost entirely due to portion size, so this is something I struggle with. After your post I'm going to have to look to see if I'm missing the joy elsewhere too. Well, off to the farmers' market before they close on me.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:34:39 -0000

We "ordinary" people out here are not such fools as this whole thread would make us out to be. ("Oh those poor low-wage folks, they are dummies, really, don't you get it, whatever, they don't know or care to know the difference, but to stuff themselves and their kids with Big Macs, that's the only satisfaction they understand."

I think you'll fine that people will pay you a lot more heed when you don't generalize about them. More than that, if you disagree with something that someone's said, then disagree with them--specifically and precisely.

I'd love for you to quote someone saying, or even implying, that poor people are stupid. I'd love for you to quote someone claiming that it's simply poverty. The first step in digging deeper, as you say, is not to assume the motivations of those you disagree with, not to inflate what they're saying (i.e. claiming that they're saying poor people are stupid) and doing the necessary work of taking people's arguments seriously, and respectfully engaging with what they've actually said.

That's the bare minimum here. People take time to write these things out. They deserve your consideration and your honesty. They deserve your respect.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

The Ninja Zombie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:47:28 -0000

@stacy

But to say that "most" poor people are choosing not to work doesn't seem right to me. Although I guess that depends on what you mean by 'poor.'

Is 80% "most"? 80% of the poor (29.8 million people) are not in the labor force, i.e. they are not working or even looking for work. By 'poor', I mean the US government's definition of poor.

@Wili

many "poor people" are working two to three jobs just to put that big mac on the table.

Not that many. Only 10% of the poor (3.9 million people) "usually" work full time.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf

Re: Food. We Need Food.

kumquat — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:37:19 -0000

I would bet this is more of a matter of economy of scale - it isn't that the corn syrup is cheaper than water, it's that cherries in syrup are in much higher demand than cherries in water, and therefore the plants producing cherries in syrup can get their cost per can down lower.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

ST — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:06:14 -0000

I don't think you know much about the commenters here; some may have privileged backgrounds, but plenty do not. You're far from the only person here who comes from poverty. And to read any of this as saying poverty=stupid is just not to be reading very closely.

You are, apparently, able to live in healthy way that serves you very well, making smart choices for yourself most or all of the time. Yay. I mean that. But you're refusing to hear other people's experience. It's not my experience. I find it hard to make smart choices for myself when my life gets difficult. I look for comfort, and often comfort doesn't equal what would serve me best. I extrapolate my experience to people who are living what look to be more difficult lives than mine.

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Green — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:39:29 -0000

You don't really think that I meant that all black people, without exception, eat/ate unhealthy do you?

Re: Food. We Need Food.

Juaquin Murrieta — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:34:36 -0000

This whole discussion causes me to be faintly nauseated at the thought of eating a Burger King hamburger.