Once Again: Is It Easy?
The discussion continues in the comments here, and I think the consensus is that people face genuine logistic and personal difficulties in the struggle to lose weight, not the least of which is the message we're getting that we are terrible people for "letting ourselves go" which a terrible turn of phrase but that's a whole other story.
This morning on NPR, I was listening to this report about how obesity is often linked to income. I think we've touched on this before in the comments of a previous post, how wealth used to mean plumpness (and that was desirable) and now wealth means one can afford to be thin (which is the current ideal).
This morning's story was about a woman who only has a couple of dollars for lunch and works on the road. In an effort to get the most for her money, she buys two bacon cheeseburgers. What else could you buy that was as filling, but healthy, for two dollars? Especially on the road? I haven't been able to come up with anything.
This morning on NPR, I was listening to this report about how obesity is often linked to income. I think we've touched on this before in the comments of a previous post, how wealth used to mean plumpness (and that was desirable) and now wealth means one can afford to be thin (which is the current ideal).
This morning's story was about a woman who only has a couple of dollars for lunch and works on the road. In an effort to get the most for her money, she buys two bacon cheeseburgers. What else could you buy that was as filling, but healthy, for two dollars? Especially on the road? I haven't been able to come up with anything.
posted by mo pie at 9:19 AM
27 Comments:
How about a Wendy's kids meal- choose the chicken- get the mandarin oranges and the low-fat milk. I believe it is right around 2 bucks. Or she could pool her money at the beginning of the week- buy a loaf of whole wheat bread, some less-expensive turky (or a whole turkey- even bettah) and packets of low-calorie mayo and make a fresh sandwich on the road every day. I did this for months when I used to work driving all the time- I also did it with those new tuna packs which are complete with crackers, tuna and low-fat mayo. There are ways- even if she cut out the bacon and cheese she would be doing so much better- or one burger and a banana. Sorry- sounds like a copout to me.
Anonymous, I don't think you're wrong about it being a cop out. That's what I would suggest to her too: go to the grocery store, get supplies, prepare meals in advance. Put a cooler in her car. That type of thing. But I was trying to think what she might do if that wasn't an option for her for whatever reason. The Wendy's kid's meal doesn't sound very filling, though.
I heard the NPR story on my way to work this morning, and I didn't agree with much of it. I do believe that obesity is often linked to income, but I think that is just one factor. The story terribly oversimplified the whole issue. There are so many things that contribute to weight gain, and plenty of low-income people make healthier food choices.
Now, to answer your question -- there are lots of quick foods this woman could take in a lunchbox or cooler that would be healthier than her current meals and don't require a stove or microwave to heat. String cheese, individual-serving yogurts, hummus and pitas (I've seen these pre-packaged for easy travel), nuts, apples, bananas, oranges, crackers (good ones, like low-fat Triscuits) with low-fat cheese, baby carrots, tortilla chips with bean dip, those pre-packaged tuna salad things, meal-replacement bars (Clif, Powerbars, etc.), hard-boiled eggs, PB&J, crackers with peanut butter . . . I could go on and on.
If one must eat a fast food meal, a good option is a couple of Taco Bell bean burritos -- $.79 each, lower in calories than anything else on their menu, and two of them are pretty filling.
I take both my breakfast and my lunch to work every day, so I know that it is totally possible and not very difficult. All you have to do is pack your lunchbox the night before, and it's ready to grab from the fridge in the morning.
Anonymous poster: The quick choices you mention (post above) are not available for $2. A yogurt to go is like .80 or .90 each, and one yogurt does not fill you up. Ditto on the string cheese. Don't forget one aspect of this discussion was that she can spend $2 for lunch right now with 2 bacon cheeseburgers... At least she is getting her iron! And protein!
Bananas, however, are like $.49 a pound. You can buy lots of bananas for $2. Ditto rice and beans. And rice and beans and bananas are nutritious. But, they are not available on the road, you have to cook rice and beans.
This lady is eating a chai tea and muffin for breakfast, and Poptarts from the vending machine for dinner. Sure a yogurt and a bunch of Triscuits is as filling as Poptarts.
I think an interesting point, too, is how much TIME it takes to eat healthy, as well as how much money. The shopping and food prep are significant, plus we're talking about the inconvenience of packing and carrying around a cooler. I didn't hear the original story, so I don't know if "on the road" means she's on a business trip for a week, or whether she drives around town all day, like a home inspector or sales rep. I don't see packing a cooler for a week. Someone, must have been either Wendy at Poundy or Julie at SkinnyDaily, made the point that to live a healthy lifestyle in America you practically have to be countercultural.
The other thing is, and we forget this because we're all trying to lose, calories are GOOD. Food is your fuel for the day. I can see the logic in someone, especially not a dieter, figuring the calculation as: for two dollars I can purchase 1000 calories of fuel (bacon burgers) or 400 calories of fuel (cheese sticks and yogurt). That's not for me, obviously, but it's not such a crazy choice for someone else.
A few months ago 20/20 or nightline had a special on obesity. They followed around some low income people who were relying on fast food as a cheap alternative and wondered why didn't the just go to the grocery.
As it turns out, in their neighborhood there was NO grocery and since none of them had a car and in some cases the trip was 2 hours, fast food was actually in walking distance and their primary option.
Not only that, they also found that the restaurants all closed up and there was nothing left but fast food joints. In places where there was a local minimart the food was twice as expensive as the grocery, didn't have a huge selection or fresh fruits or veggies.
So when I hear/read someone say that those choices are a copout my blood boils.
The bottom line that continues to get clouded over is the food industry tied w/gov't subsidies is one of the biggest causes of the current health of this country.
Then people cry I don't want the gov't invovled blah blah blah well wake up because your very gov't is cutting deals with the very industry that removes fresh fruits and veggies from schools and replaces it with soda and fried food. Your gov't has now classified french fries as a vegetable and years ago called ketchup a vegetable.
The same gov't subsidizes corn products, which is in everything and has been linked to increases in diabetes etc, but will not give the same subisides to fruits and veggies. And people wonder why they are so expensive.
A few months ago 20/20 or nightline had a special on obesity. They followed around some low income people who were relying on fast food as a cheap alternative and wondered why didn't the just go to the grocery.
As it turns out, in their neighborhood there was NO grocery and since none of them had a car and in some cases the trip was 2 hours, fast food was actually in walking distance and their primary option.
Not only that, they also found that the restaurants all closed up and there was nothing left but fast food joints. In places where there was a local minimart the food was twice as expensive as the grocery, didn't have a huge selection or fresh fruits or veggies.
So when I hear/read someone say that those choices are a copout my blood boils.
The bottom line that continues to get clouded over is the food industry tied w/gov't subsidies is one of the biggest causes of the current health of this country.
Then people cry I don't want the gov't invovled blah blah blah well wake up because your very gov't is cutting deals with the very industry that removes fresh fruits and veggies from schools and replaces it with soda and fried food. Your gov't has now classified french fries as a vegetable and years ago called ketchup a vegetable.
The same gov't subsidizes corn products, which is in everything and has been linked to increases in diabetes etc, but will not give the same subisides to fruits and veggies. And people wonder why they are so expensive.
Wendy's website lists a Bacon Classic cheeseburger at 580 calories each.
Fast food is cheap, ready-made, and easily available anywhere you go. It's advertised frequently, and it's familiar and even comforting for a lot of people. Knowing how to eat right, especially on a low budget, takes time in researching nutrition, going to the grocery store and comparing prices, having a place to store and prepare food, and taking time to make the food -- and then do the dishes later. A lot of working people have to take two jobs just to pay exorbitant rents created by a competitive housing market. They learn eating habits from their parents, not books; their main concern about food is getting more of it faster in the few moments they have to eat. Add to this that they usually have other health problems which they can't afford to treat, often exacerbated by their work; and they're too tired and busy to exercise right; when does the working class have time, knowledge, money, or means to take good care of themselves?
"Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in a America" by Barbara Ehrenreich is one great analysis of how hard it is for low-income laborers to take control of any part of their lives, and one of the things she mentions is the difficulty of eating healthy. While not impossible, as others have already pointed out (and the options for healthy food have increased some since the book was published), the odds are stacked against low-income people when it comes to health. The result is that a lot of them do end up struggling with obesity.
this article is an interesting (UK) perspective on poverty and obesity
http://www.sirc.org/articles/poverty_and_obesity.shtml
I agree with that it is a cop out. Sure, eating healthy is more difficult- sure, going to the grocery store and buying healthier foods and making lunches for the whole week ahead of time to take with you is time consuming. Perhaps the Wendy's kids meal is that filling- although perhaps we are just used to eating huge portions. It does suck that fast food rest. are everywhere and so easy and so cheap- BUT that doesn't mean we have to go. We don't have to take the easy route every single time. Fast and easy and cheap should not be the "default" standards that we choose our meals by. People used to grown their own damn food or hunt for it- now we bitch if we have to drive to a grocery store that is further away than the fast food joint? Come on!
I work with low-income and zero-income families, and generally speaking, they tend not to focus on healthy meal planning. I think it's a matter of survival. For example, on any given day, a good majority of my clients face having their electricity cut off, so a fridge brimming with low-fat cheeses, yogurts, and such isn't practical. They buy quick, prepackaged meals and snacks because they're easy to feed the kids when the power's been shut off.
I think the point about the difficulty of finding a good grocery store in a low-income neighborhood is a valid one. If you don't have a car and bus fare requires money you don't have, you can't really make it to a large, luxe supermarket with bountiful produce. You count yourself lucky if you can dig a relatively unbruised banana out of the basket on the counter at the 7/11.
Megan
Good comments, and agree with almost every one on some level. I think it takes time and effort to eat healthy. It's so much easier and cheaper to stop and grab 2 cheesburgers. I know if I were to choose the kids meal....at 380 calories I would be hungry a few hours later. Now if I would have 2 bacon cheeseburgers I would be full all afternoon, probably until later at night 6-7ish. So, that $2 would have to incorporate a snack for me to be full until dinner if I went with the kids meal.
Saying that though, that is not a healthy choice at all. It takes planning and time to pack a meal for lunch every day. You have to choose to make time out for you to do so.
I do think it is easier and takes alot less time to stop at the fast food. I don't necessarily think it is cheaper as when I didn't have alot of money, I went to the grocery and spent $10-15 a week for my lunch and dinners which were pretty healthy. It took time, being creative, but not more money.
Check out this NPR story on Save-a-Lot grocery stores:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3264075
Save-a-Lot is a chain that is opening stores in lots of disadvantaged neighborhoods that have no other grocery stores. They are located so residents can easily walk or bicycle to them, and the prices are lower than other supermarkets.
This is an interesting discussion.
My assumption is that most (if not all) of the posters here do, in fact, have access to a grocery store and are not living in neighborhoods where the only option is fast food. While I think the discussion of obesity and income (or should I say poverty) is an interesting one, it's hardly relevant to the lives of those of us participating in this discussion.
Having said that, here's a word that I've seen used over and over in this and other similar discussions: "full". I think it's important to define what that word means to you. A piece of fruit, yogurt and a handful of crackers is certainly not a feast, but from a nutritional perspective it is a healthful meal.
Why is it so important to feel "full"? Because it will prevent you from cheating? Or because you equate feeling "full" with happiness? Every person I have ever known who has struggled with a significant weight problem has talked about the need to feel "full", but I have never been sure whether they were talking about the physical sensation or something else.
Dear Anonymous the nth:
If I'm misinterpreting your remarks please excuse me. But there's something in the tone of your post that I don't like.
- It doesn't matter whether the question of obesity and poverty is "relevant" to any of us. It's relevant to us because we are intelligent, interested, aware people who like to use our brains. It's relevant to ANYone who wants to think, write, or read about it.
- While you're exhorting us to define "full," please also define for us what a "healthful meal" is. Not everyone will agree with you that fruit, yogurt, and crackers fit that definition.
- People like to feel full because they don't like to feel hungry. It's what you call an "instinct." You know: eat, drink, procreate, breath. Thin people like to eat and feel full just as much as fat people.
- Lastly, we here in the Weight Loss Universe don't call it "cheating." We are complete human beings with all the rights and privileges of anyone else - we are allowed to eat whatever, whenever, however much we want. When we choose to deviate from a specific diet plan, that's called CHOOSING, not CHEATING.
Marla, I agree with you on this:
"It doesn't matter whether the question of obesity and poverty is "relevant" to any of us. It's relevant to us because we are intelligent, interested, aware people who like to use our brains. It's relevant to ANYone who wants to think, write, or read about it."
I think it is an interesting topic and worthy of discussion, especially in a blog dedicated to weight related issues. This is true whether or not I myself am low-income or living in a neighborhood with few choices for grocery shopping.
Hi- I have to put a comment here now. I think you were really over the top Marla on your comments to the other poster. You have to give some leeway that the written word is hard to "read". And if that person is posting in this blog- she/he is part of the weight loss community and has a right to their opinion.
I thought the posting was interesting myself- made me stop and think about what "full" really is. Yeah, I agree she/he had a certain "tone"- but jumping to your kind of conclusions is pretty drastic.
And, as a "dieter" and weightloss writer- I call it cheating when I "deviate" from a plan I am on- many of us do. Doesn't bother me at all.
I just think your post was a little tough on her/him and took the "debate" to a mean spirited level.
That's me up there, anonymous the nth.
I really didn't intend to offend anyone with my post, and Marla, I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my coments to be hostile. The point I was trying to make about the connection between poverty and weight loss was not that it wasn't an important discussion, but rather that it wasn't relevant to any of our weight loss issues. You're right, intelligent people can and should ponder these issues, I just wanted to point out that we shouldn't confuse our own struggles with those of people who face greater socio-economic challenges.
As for my point about the definition of "full", I still think it's a valid question. Many people eat to fill a void in their lives that has nothing to do with hunger and that phenomenon is well documented. I know that I am certainly capable of downing a pint of Ben and Jerry's after a bad day and I know that I am not alone. So my question is, how often do we confuse the biological need to consume a certain amount of calories in order to maintain good health with the more intangible need to satisfy some part of our psyche?
Apparently I read a meaning into the original post that the writer did not intend to express. Consider my comments retracted.
I have to say it puts my gut in knots to read a comment like "While I think the discussion of obesity and income (or should I say poverty) is an interesting one, it's hardly relevant to the lives of those of us participating in this discussion. " Even if it wasn't meant as hostile, I think that is quite an assumption. I don't think poverty is *just* about whether you have access to a car or a grocery store. I think there are other paradigmatic issues that come up, as well, such as the likelihood of having children and no spousal/partner support, and how *that* affects time and money investment in what is (for many "fat" people) a relatively self-absorbed pursuit of a better body.
I'm not knocking that pursuit; I'm right on the journey with the rest of you. But you know, when I have $5 left and 10 days till pay day, damn straight we're going to be eating ramen and the fattiest package of ground beef they sell. Doesn't mean I like it, or that I'd choose it for myself, as a general rule. But it's a reality.
I am educated, I'm employed, and I am no longer living below the poverty line. But I once was. And my electric gets turned off about 3 times a year, without fail right after I've gone shopping (because I often get to choose between paying utilities or buying groceries). I *have* been on welfare. I *know* that one of the most useful things you can put in those "holiday cans-of-crap-you-don't-want" collections is instant pudding (it makes the powdered milk distributed by WIC and food banks palatable to children). These are a definite part of my experience and they are absolutely a product of poverty. The fact that I have a Master's degree and a full time job and I'm still struggling has *everything* to do with where I cam from. People who come from privilege don't end up on welfare, with a 2 year old, at 22...not at the rates that those from the lower classes do, anyway.
Ty (www.livejournal.com/users/beyondbliss and www.proactivebliss.net)
"People who come from privilege don't end up on welfare"
Well, actually they do. I grew up in a wealthy town, my parents were both ivy league-educated WASPs from good families and I attended what is probably one of the best private schools in this country (on scholarship). I also spent the better part of my childhood living in other people's homes because my mother couldn't afford to pay rent, much less utilities. My clothes (including my school uniforms) came from thrift shops - I don't think I ever had a brand new piece of clothing until I was out of high school and able to pay for it with my own money (until I was 18 I helped to support my family so that we could...you know...eat).
During that time there were often days when my mom barely had enough money to put food on the table, but she managed. Between welfare and the kindness of others, we never went hungry - and we never ate ramen noodles either. I learned alot about nutrition from my mom, including the fact that rice and beans or pasta and sauce with a can of peas can be a hearty and nutritious meal that you can eat for days.
The mere fact that you have time to engage in this discussion (not to mention that you are doing so using a computer, which at the very least means you are employed) tells me that you are no longer living at the poverty level of the kinds of people who REALLY don't have any options.
So, really, although you can relate to the issue it is no longer relevant to the life you're living now.
What I *said* if you read the comment was that people who come from privilege don't end up on welfare with a 2 year old at 22, or at least not *at the rate* that people from the lower classes do. Your mother is an exception. There are a lot of exceptions. But for people in the working classes poverty is not the exception, it's the rule.
As for "So, really, although you can relate to the issue it is no longer relevant to the life you're living now." That's a total crock. The fact that I'm working now means that I have an income. It doesn't mean I always have options. As I said, every single month I have the option of paying utilities OR groceries. Not both. Three times this year our family's groceries came from the food bank, not the grocery store. It is absolutely relevant to my life.
"So, really, although you can relate to the issue it is no longer relevant to the life you're living now."
I think that only concerning ourselves with issues that affect our own daily lives is a pretty self-absorbed way to live.
Think how many important social changes would have been greatly delayed if people didn't worry about things that are "relevant to the life [they're] living now." Civil rights, women's suffrage, child labor laws...the list could get pretty long.
Megan
"You're right, intelligent people can and should ponder these issues, I just wanted to point out that we shouldn't confuse our own struggles with those of people who face greater socio-economic challenges."
This is what I said earlier, but that message seems to have gotten lost in the last few posts. I do think it's important to talk about this stuff, but I also think it's important to make the distinction between our OWN challenges in trying to lose weight and the challenges of someone who is so overwhelmed by socio-economic pressures that weight loss is not even on the radar.
This is not a clear cut issue (obviously), but I guess it felt like we were having 2 discussions that became entangled -
1. The discussion of how people living below the poverty line often make food choices based on circumstances beyond their control (i.e. income, lack of education or the availability of healthful, low-calorie food)
and
2. The discussion of the challenges that a person living on a budget faces when trying to lose weight.
I DON'T think these 2 scenarios are the same and that is all I was trying to say. I apologize for offending anyone.
anonymous the nth
The thing is, though, "greater socio-economic challenges" is not a clear definition. Unless you live in a cardboard box on the street, there are people who face great socio-economic challenges.
What it comes down to is that no one can speak for what another person faces. Obviously poverty is not something that *you* feel is relevant to your life now. I do feel like it's relevant to my life.
Post a Comment
<< Home