Prohibiting new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Yes, HFCS is a by product that has become monetized. HFCS is easier to sustain constant costs than SUGAR which is what it was meant to replace. HFCS is not cheaper to produce than corn, cheaper to predict and hedge profits. Sugar is quite expensive as a commodity which is why you see HFCS as a replacement in cheap foodstuffs wherein sugar is not required such as cakes, cookies, candies.

I wasn't comparing hfcs to sugar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

ummm yes it is put together by people who are budgeting. It is put together by people who are monitoring how people SPEND their money. It may not be the way that YOU budget, but it is how other people budget.

It didn't actually say that, though. The only reference close to where it gave the $36 was "average American". That means someone who is simply buying food and maybe trying to maintain a reasonable budget. What about someone attempting to create a healthy diet that could compete directly with an unhealthy diet so far as budget?

I was going to go to Trader Joe's tomorrow, but instead I'll head over to Safeway and I'll put together a 1 day diet and post the brand, price, and basic information. I'll provide a day of delicious foods, and the diet will not result in a person being hungry at all or sick.

If you'd like, post an unhealthy, fast food-ish 1 day diet. Same stipulations: no hunger and no sick.

Atreides88 · 08-05-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Ah, but you've made a rookie mistake: basing everything on calories. Compare my menu to the McDonalds menu on calories and I've had my ass handed to me, but it's not that simple at all. My diet featured variety, vitamins and minerals, fiber, healthy fats, and not even the whisper of a preservative or artificial additive. What does this mean? This means a more balanced diet will mean a better metabolism and better general health.

For anyone in school, test my theory. On test day, have a McDonalds Sausage and egg abortion sandwich with hash fried so deep that you can taste gasoline. And shoot, for kicks, wash it down with a diet cola. Next test rolls around have a small bowl of shredded wheat in soy milk and some heart healthy eggs with mushrooms, peppers, and a glass of water (which washes down a multivitimin). Roughly the same caloric count (plus or minus). In addition to getting more than twice the volume of food, you're going to have more energy. BUT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?! It's the quality of the calorie, of course.

Not only that, but the fact that you've had a substantially higher mass of food also means you feel more full and aren't hungry for a while longer. This is why people who count calories don't starve.

Until you compensate for quality of calorie and the mass of the food, you're missing a lot of the equation and you're presenting an incorrect answer.

I call shenanigans. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of the chemical energy in a substance. This is no difference between a calorie in a hamburger and a calorie in an apple. The real difference is how your body metabolizes the food you eat, and then it's really just a matter of whether it's in solid or liquid form. Also, organic foods and healthy foods cost more to produce, that cost is then passed on to the consumer.

This whole ordeal reminds me why I'm happy I'm not living in LA anymore. It smacks of irresponsible government and ignorant lawmakers who are simply trying to find a non-solution to a real problem simply so they look good. We are fat because we eat too much and don't exercise enough; keeping fast food out of South Central isn't going to fix that problem, it just means that the residents are going to have to go farther out of their way to eat their Big Macs.

@ Cynth: I'm disappointed. While Carl's Jr. may be awesome -- Double Western Bacon Cheeseburger being their greatest creation -- everyone knows that In-N-Out is where it's at.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I wasn't comparing hfcs to sugar.

It didn't actually say that, though. The only reference close to where it gave the $36 was "average American". That means someone who is simply buying food and maybe trying to maintain a reasonable budget. What about someone attempting to create a healthy diet that could compete directly with an unhealthy diet so far as budget?

I was going to go to Trader Joe's tomorrow, but instead I'll head over to Safeway and I'll put together a 1 day diet and post the brand, price, and basic information. I'll provide a day of delicious foods, and the diet will not result in a person being hungry at all or sick.

If you'd like, post an unhealthy, fast food-ish 1 day diet. Same stipulations: no hunger and no sick.

You can't compare it to corn, people don't eat raw HFCS.

What does that prove Will? That a person can do it? Yes, a person can do it. People think it's expensive to live and eat in NYC. It is if you don't know where or how to eat cheap.

The issue at stake here: Are people willing to do it? The sad answer to this question is, no they are not, or at least, a major demographic of people are not willing to do so.

Just like I can tell people that it's possible to save money, the reality is if they don't save money, they don't save money. It's not much different than that. I can want it all I want, it won't change the reality of it being that people don't save money and don't spend money on healthy food.

Even Whole Foods has tried to remarket themselves as a healthy and fair price alternative to Safeway, Krogers, Ralphs, etc.

Quote:

View: Whole Foods Looks for a Fresh Image in Lean Times
Source: NYTimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Whole Foods Looks for a Fresh Image in Lean Times
August 2, 2008
Whole Foods Looks for a Fresh Image in Lean Times
By ANDREW MARTIN
PHILADELPHIA — Shawn Hebb may have one of America’s toughest jobs: convincing people that Whole Foods Market can be an economical place to shop.

This week, leading five customers through a store here, he breezed past the triple cream goat cheese, $39.99 a pound, and the fresh tuna, $19.99 a pound, to focus on the merits of beans, chicken thighs and frozen fish.

Then he held up a $1.50 package of tofu. “It looks gross but it’s delicious,” he said.

Whole Foods Market is on a mission to revise its gold-plated image as consumers pull back on discretionary spending in a troubled economy. The company was once a Wall Street darling, but its sales growth was cooling even before the economy turned. Since peaking at the beginning of 2006, its stock has dropped more than 70 percent.

Now, in a sign of the times, the company is offering deeper discounts, adding lower-priced store brands and emphasizing value in its advertising. It is even inviting customers to show up for budget-focused store tours like those led by Mr. Hebb, a Whole Foods employee.

But the budget claims are no easy sell at a store that long ago earned the nickname Whole Paycheck. Told of the company’s budget pitch by a reporter, some Whole Foods customers said they had not noticed cheaper prices; a few laughed.

Walter Robb, the company’s co-president, acknowledged that Whole Foods was fighting strong consumer perceptions about the chain’s prices, and he added that some of that was deserved. But he said the company had made a strong effort to challenge its competitors on price.

“I’m getting a little tired of that tag around our neck,” he said, referring to the nickname. “We are a lot more competitive than people give us credit for. We challenge anyone on like items.”

Whole Foods’ makeover comes amid a tumultuous time in the grocery industry, as customers struggling to pay for higher-priced fuel and food are trading down to lesser products and discount-oriented stores.

A July survey by TNS Retail Forward, of Columbus, Ohio, found that 20 percent of shoppers have changed where they buy groceries and household essentials because of the economy. The biggest beneficiaries have been dollar stores and discount grocers like Aldi and Save-a-Lot, which offer a limited selection at extreme discounts.

The losers have been convenience stores, drug stores, health and natural food stores, and conventional supermarkets.

In the last month alone, grocery chains like Safeway, Supervalu and Delhaize Group, whose stores include Hannaford Brothers and Food Lion, have lowered their earnings outlooks because of higher energy costs and consumer penny-pinching. On Thursday, Winn-Dixie executives said increased budget offerings in the most recent quarter had bolstered sales but hurt the company’s earnings.

“The economy caught a lot of them off guard,” said David Orgel, the editor in chief of Supermarket News, a trade publication. He said that many grocers, aiming to compete with the likes of Whole Foods, have spent the last few years positioning their stores for a “more upscale experience.” They are suddenly scrambling to give consumers the budget items that they are demanding.

Making matters worse for Whole Foods, consumer interest in organic food appears to be leveling off after several years of double-digit growth, according to the Hartman Group, a market research firm specializing in health and wellness.

Laurie Demeritt, president of the Hartman Group, said core consumers for organic goods, about 15 percent of the population, are becoming even more committed. But people less attached to such items are continuing to buy organic dairy products, produce and meat, and are buying fewer organic goods among packaged items, like cereal and crackers, she said.

“They don’t see those center-store categories as being so important,” she said. “The economy has only exacerbated that situation.”

The downturn in the economy comes during an inglorious stretch in Whole Foods’ otherwise remarkable 28-year history. It was not long ago that Whole Foods was the toast of Wall Street and the envy of its competitors, with its gleaming stores stocked with organic produce, hormone-free meats and premium cheeses.

But Whole Foods’ stock has been sliding for two and a half years, in part because it was not able to maintain the double-digit same-store sales growth that was once routine and because its margins have been hurt by an aggressive strategy for adding new and bigger stores.

(The chain’s same-store sales increase, 6.7 percent in the second quarter, and its gross profit margin, 35 percent, remain among the best in the industry.)

In the last earnings report, in May, Whole Foods executives said it was not clear how the weak economy was affecting sales. On Tuesday, the company will report earnings for the most recent quarter, one in which many other grocers struggled.

“It’s becoming clear that this worsening economic environment is having an impact on consumers at all economic levels,” said Mitchell P. Corwin, an analyst at Morningstar. “The Whole Paycheck image can really hurt you.”

Mr. Corwin said it would take time for Whole Foods to change that image. “When you walk into these big beautiful stores, it’s hard for a consumer to think that it is a value-oriented type of retailer,” he said.

Andrew Wolf, an analyst for BB&T Capital Markets, said Whole Foods was “a tale of two stores.” He said the grocery items in the middle of the store are competitive if not cheaper than those at other stores offering the same products, mentioning items like Kashi cereal.

But he said that Whole Foods was more expensive on the perimeter of the store, where it sells produce, meat, seafood and prepared foods, items that account for the majority of sales.

“They’ll say the price is higher, but the quality is higher,” he said. “It’s kind of, ‘You get what you pay for.’ ”

With the economy still deteriorating, a big question for Whole Foods is whether even its core customers will continue to pay prices like $6.99 a pound for all-natural, air-chilled chicken breast or $12 for a bag of cherries.

“We’ve seen evidence of people being more careful with their choices,” said Mr. Robb, the co-president, who said that consumers were still buying items like wine and cheese, but perhaps buying cheaper varieties.

Despite the economic turmoil, he said consumers remained intensely interested in health and the quality of their food, where he believes Whole Foods has an edge.

The company’s budget strategy is on prominent display at its expansive store in Edgewater, N.J., which competes with a Trader Joe’s down the street. A tomato-colored “Weekly Buys” flier is clearly visible by the front door, and sale signs are sprinkled throughout the aisles.

Burger patties were on sale recently for a dollar each, while value packages of fresh cod and salmon were a dollar a pound less than smaller amounts purchased at the fish counter.

Still, it was hard to find a shopper who considered Whole Foods a bargain, though many raved about the store’s organic goods, produce, meat and fish.

“It’s a great store, but I don’t see it as a value,” said Linda Martino, 41.

But Susan Davis, 56, said she had noticed more sale signs. “I came for something else one day and was shocked to find the meat on sale, so I bought it and put it in the freezer,” she said.

At the conclusion of the “Value Tour” in Philadelphia one recent evening, one participant, Katera Moore, said she thought it had been worthwhile because she had learned about a few bargains, like frozen fish fillets and domestically produced cheese.

Even so, she said she considered Whole Foods expensive for average people. Ms. Moore, 34, said, “It was only cheap if you were a vegetarian willing to eat beans and tofu.”

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 09:18 PM

Atreides88, the caloric value of gasoline is astounding. It's much more efficient than anything you can even get at McDonald's. But does that mean drinking 2000 calories of gasoline a day will give you the same energy as 2000 calories of a balanced diet? No? Is that because the form it comes in is unfriendly to the human body? We have trouble digesting the form the calories come in? It's the same thing, only to a less extreme degree, with unhealthy foods that have a high caloric count. So yes, it's how you digest it and it can make all the difference in the world.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atreides88

I call shenanigans. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of the chemical energy in a substance. This is no difference between a calorie in a hamburger and a calorie in an apple. The real difference is how your body metabolizes the food you eat, and then it's really just a matter of whether it's in solid or liquid form. Also, organic foods and healthy foods cost more to produce, that cost is then passed on to the consumer.

This whole ordeal reminds me why I'm happy I'm not living in LA anymore. It smacks of irresponsible government and ignorant lawmakers who are simply trying to find a non-solution to a real problem simply so they look good. We are fat because we eat too much and don't exercise enough; keeping fast food out of South Central isn't going to fix that problem, it just means that the residents are going to have to go farther out of their way to eat their Big Macs.

@ Cynth: I'm disappointed. While Carl's Jr. may be awesome -- Double Western Bacon Cheeseburger being their greatest creation -- everyone knows that In-N-Out is where it's at.

Yes, In-N-Out is where it's at, but it's not open at 1AM

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The issue at stake here: Are people willing to do it? The sad answer to this question is, no they are not, or at least, a major demographic of people are not willing to do so.

I'm not arguing willingness, I'm arguing whether it's possible. I'm arguing that eating healthy doesn't have to be as expensive as you and Atreides88 make it out to be. If someone is unwilling to do the simple maths to have an efficient food budget, then too bad. I'm saying that it's possible, and I'll demonstrate that tomorrow afternoon. Unless you're already conceding that it's possible?

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Atreides88, the caloric value of gasoline is astounding. It's much more efficient than anything you can even get at McDonald's. But does that mean drinking 2000 calories of gasoline a day will give you the same energy as 2000 calories of a balanced diet? No? Is that because the form it comes in is unfriendly to the human body? We have trouble digesting the form the calories come in? It's the same thing, only to a less extreme degree, with unhealthy foods that have a high caloric count. So yes, it's how you digest it and it can make all the difference in the world.

No, you're again wrong. You cannot compare calories from chemicals to foodstuffs. It's not a fair comparison at all. In fact, it is the fallacy of equivocation since you are making them appear equal in some fashion when in any reality they are not.

But you can compare edible goods to edible goods. Calories are calories, what is important is nutrient density to the caloric density, which is obviously the point you are trying to make.

But again, it's MORE expensive to make low calorie high nutrient density foodstuffs than it is to make high calorie low nutrient.

Why? Because nutrients cost money. Think of supplements and how much those cost for the raw ingredients of nutrients. Densely packed nutrients are expensive. It is expensive to extract and refine first and foremost. There's no ability to dispute that.

So you have something with empty calories, you want to add some sort of nutritional benefit to it, it will increase the costs of the product. This is simple economy of cost of raw materials. You can see it in fortified cereals. Surgary cereals are less expensive than "healthy" alternatives. But when you look at the nutritional information you find that it has just as many calories and almost as much sugars.

Atreides88 · 08-05-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Atreides88, the caloric value of gasoline is astounding. It's much more efficient than anything you can even get at McDonald's. But does that mean drinking 2000 calories of gasoline a day will give you the same energy as 2000 calories of a balanced diet? No? Is that because the form it comes in is unfriendly to the human body? We have trouble digesting the form the calories come in? It's the same thing, only to a less extreme degree, with unhealthy foods that have a high caloric count. So yes, it's how you digest it and it can make all the difference in the world.

You're comparing apples to combustible liquids. We don't drink gasoline 1) because it's toxic, 2) it lacks vitamins and minerals, 3) did I mention it will kill you?

I may have misunderstood what you meant by calorie quality. If your quality is based on whether the calorie intake from fresh foods is healthier because they have a higher number of vitamins and minerals than the crap you find at Mickie D's, then you'd have an argument. Basing it upon the fact that one's in burger form and the other's in fruit and veggie form is preposterous.

Also, the calorie used to measure chemical potential in gasoline is not the same as the calorie used to measure chemical potential in food. The calorie is also an archaic unit.

Cynth, you have a point. If only they were open 24 hours. Honestly, I'd settle for them opening a chain on the East Coast.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm not arguing willingness, I'm arguing whether it's possible. I'm arguing that eating healthy doesn't have to be as expensive as you and Atreides88 make it out to be. If someone is unwilling to do the simple maths to have an efficient food budget, then too bad. I'm saying that it's possible, and I'll demonstrate that tomorrow afternoon. Unless you're already conceding that it's possible?

Just like the minimum wage thread, it's within the realm of possibilty, but not necessarily the realm of probability. Meaning that just because 11M filipinos are sending money home does not mean that 11M Americans will also save money. The same reality is here. I know that it's possible in some places to make a healthy meal for less than it costs to go out to dinner.

That's not ever been what I've been driving at. I'm still stating that across the nation it's not possible for some markets. In other places it isn't possible because the individual will not do so.

jorgelito · 08-05-2008, 10:48 PM

I don't know Cyn, but I don't think it's that conclusive. I believe healthy food can definitely be cheaper than junk foods. That's one of the benefits of why I buy healthy (besides the health aspect). Saving money and enjoying a healthy diet need not be mutually exclusive.

Example: Trader Joes has decent groceries for a good price. Even eating at Mcdonalds gets pricey (I do this sometimes). I eat #2 breakfast, #3 lunch, #3 dinner: $16. 3 healthy meals made from Trader Joe's groceries comes out to less than $10. (2 eggs, toast, soy milk, oatmeal; turkey sandwich; turkey penne and salad).

Jetée · 08-06-2008, 12:55 AM

A clarification that I did not think needed to be addressed, yet still does the debate of the issue continue in a manner that suggests that which is not proven: all foods provide adequate sustenance(calories) that when consumed in appropriximate quantities(say the basis of 2,000 daily) will sufficiently afford & attain a general sensation of complete nourishment or well-being(feeling full).

The above statement is false. It is a fallacy to equate the amount of calories in any food to that of another in order to comparably define its nourishing factor. Of course different foods provide different nutrients in varying degrees, but it is not suffice to state that once one reaches the plateau of 2,000 calories, or some fraction of that during any one meal, can one adequately resolve that you, me, or anyone else will feel fully-satisfied after consumption.
E.g. Waking up, subject Amanda, subject Billy, and subject Colleen decide to prepare their respective breakfasts before tackling the day ahead of them.
Amanda prepares toast, grits, orange juice, milk, and a serving of ham with honey. Caloric Content of food: 750
Billy on the other hand, goes to the backyard with a basket to hand-pick his meal; eight apples sliced, served baked along with a cup of sugar water. Caloric content of food: 750
Colleen opts to just drink coffee with cream & sugar to go. She pours herself a pint of hot brew into a thermos. Caloric content: 750

Intepret the above as you see fit. I'll just offer up that whether I decide to down cans of coke every waking hour today, I'll amass calories, but I will not feel full regardless of what the nutritional facts state in terms of the extemely high caloric content, among other things replete and devoid, within this concoction. Calories are not a universally equal or even accurate measurement of satisfying or fulfilling one's hunger. It is just a signpost; what you see is not necessarily what you will encounter. Certain foods are more apt to sate hunger by providing a full-feeling to our neural receptors & abdominal constrictions.

Research: Feeling full

"Eating behaviour is influenced by hunger and the rewarding properties of food (which drive us to eat) and by satiety signals (which tell us we're full), but little is known about how the brain integrates information from these pathways.

Suspecting that the fat-derived hormone leptin might be involved, Sadaf Farooqi and Paul Fletcher, both Wellcome Trust Senior Fellows in Clinical Science from the University of Cambridge, studied two teenagers with congenital leptin deficiency. People with this condition eat excessively - even bland foods - but can be treated with leptin replacement therapy.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure the subjects' brain activity as they were shown images of food, both before and after a week of leptin treatment.

Leptin altered brain activity in the ventral striatum, a brain area associated with pleasure and reward. The hormone also seemed to help the subjects to discriminate better between bland and tasty food. Before treatment, they strongly liked nearly all foods shown (from cauliflower to chocolate cake); after leptin replacement, the average scores fell.

Leptin was also important in linking the liking of food with hunger. Brain activation in a specific striatal region was triggered by images of well-liked food, whether the leptin-deficient subjects were fasting or full. In healthy controls - and in the treated subjects - the response was seen only when people were hungry.

The results suggest that leptin acts on the brain to decrease the perception of food reward and boost the response to satiety signals after eating."

Reese · 08-06-2008, 02:38 AM

I'm trying to change my diet because I've come to realize a snack, or 20 snacks and an unsatisfactory meal does not curb my appetite whereas I can eat a single large home cooked or high quality meal from one of our local home style places and not need to eat again for the rest of the day.

I totally agree with the zoning laws. Low income people are more likely to eat unhealthy, they're more likely to smoke, drink and be overweight. I know for damn sure I'd eat healthier if there wasn't a McD on every corner.

filtherton · 08-06-2008, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Maybe for you, but the average consumer doesn't buy an organic frozen burrito or a plum. I doubt the fellows in South Central LA are eating organic frozen burritos.

Yes, but the point is that the average consumer could buy something comparably healthy and cheap.

And, I doubt the fellows in South Central determine the caloric density of their potential lunches before they buy them, but I guess I did go to the bathroom while I was watching Boyz in da Hood so I might've missed that scene. I wonder if they list caloric content on the side of 40oz bottles of malt liquor.

If people were primarily concerned with calories when they picked their lunches you'd have a lot more people who eat nothing but pastries for lunch.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

No, you're again wrong.

Not once, of the many times you've said this, have you actually demonstrated that I am wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You cannot compare calories from chemicals to foodstuffs. It's not a fair comparison at all.

Sorry, Will, you can't do it.

Why? Is there a rule? Are there different kinds of calories?

Nope, not at all. You just can't do it because it's unfair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

In fact, it is the fallacy of equivocation since you are making them appear equal in some fashion when in any reality they are not.

Who was it that said "calories are calories"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

But you can compare edible goods to edible goods. Calories are calories, what is important is nutrient density to the caloric density, which is obviously the point you are trying to make.

Yes. It's convenient to ignore the nutritional value, but that means ignoring half the equation and the nutrient density does play an important role. As a matter of fact, for what this thread is asking, calories are completely irrelevant. Cost vs. being sustained should be the debate and calories should be sidelined. That's kinda what I've been heading towards for a while, but I was on Benadryl and quite frankly I wasn't concentrating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

But again, it's MORE expensive to make low calorie high nutrient density foodstuffs than it is to make high calorie low nutrient.

It's cheaper to stay full and healthy on healthy food. That's the bottom line. You may very well be able to get 2000 calories cheaper in unhealthy form, but the reality is that if it's really unhealthy you're probably going to go hungry and also be short on necessary nutrients. So it's really not cheaper, because you have to eat more unhealthy calories to compensate for the lack of mass and nutrient value... and suddenly it's more expensive to eat unhealthy.

Edit: looks like Jetee beat me to it. Damn you Benadryl.

Poppinjay · 08-06-2008, 07:58 AM

I'd like to know where all these people in opposition to zoning live.

I've never lived anyplace that wasn't zoned. That is why I don't have a Wal Mart in my driveway. I've covered city council meetings for years and hear discussions all the time about how a business will affect an area. LA is just being more public about it, but this kind of thing happens all the time. Many cities have banned new big box construction. Is that mommy government?

LA hasn't banned junk food, they've banned new construction of fast food restaurants. They've decided there are more usefull businesses for that particular area, like grocery stores, or prisons.

kutulu · 08-06-2008, 07:59 AM

Cynthetiq:

I'm sorry but that study that concluded that a diet of low-calorie food costs $36.32 per day is bullshit. What are they basing it on, buying fresh fish at Whole Foods for $25 per pound? Is it all organic crap? I could easily spend $36/day on high calorie crap from chain restaurants if I wanted to.

Our grocery budget is about $100-$150 per week for a family of four (two under the age of 4 so they can count as one). All of our food is prepared from scratch. I have chicken, beef, or pork and my wife has wild salmon or shrimp with just about every dinner/lunch. We usually make enough for dinner for all of us to have the same thing the next day for lunch. This averages out to $4.76 - $7.14 per person per day. We are barely spending $36 per WEEK per person.

I should also add that $100-$150 per week covers everything. Food and household items like soaps, paper towels, health and beauty stuff, etc. It doesn't cover beer and about two fast food lunches per week that we have.

We do it by shopping at multiple stores and finding deals. In Phoenix you can always find bonless skinless chicken breasts for no more than $2.50/pound. Frozen shrimp (26-30 ct) is about $7/pound. You have to know what stuff is cheap at each place. We go to Trader Joe's, Sprouts (an AZ/CA 'farmer's market' store, kind of like Henry's), and a couple of chain grocery stores.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 08:08 AM

will, I'm not ignoring the nutrional value. I've been stating that nutrional dense food is more expensive to produce than empty non-nutritional foodstuffs.

It's a food manufacturing fact.

Why are apple "fries" more expensive than taking apples and cutting them yourselves? Why is bagged lettuce more expensive than a head of lettuce? Junk food and most processed food has at least a 6 month shelf life.

Because the work put into it has a cost. The shelf life of the food has a short span. It must be sold with X days or contain some sort of shelf stabilizer in order to preserve the food which also has a cost.

This is why it really doesn't matter to a restaurant if they give you 1/4 lb burger or 1/3 lb burger. The raw materials aren't as expensive as the amount of work that gets put into it.

I'm also going to state that the thing everyone has ignored here, is that the individual going to the market to buy these healthier foodstuffs has to have a knowledge and skill to make/create/prepare their own meals. There are many who do not have the skill to even boil water.

kutulu · 08-06-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Why are apple "fries" more expensive than taking apples and cutting them yourselves? Why is bagged lettuce more expensive than a head of lettuce? Junk food and most processed food has at least a 6 month shelf life.

Well, obviously. However, there is no reason, EVER, for someone on a budget to buy cut apples or bagged lettuce. It makes no sense. Then again, people are stupid.

Yes it takes skill to cook but it isn't that hard. It took me a couple of years to get to where I am but it has paid off.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

will, I'm not ignoring the nutrional value. I've been stating that [nutritional] dense food is more expensive to produce than empty non-nutritional foodstuffs.

Not even that is necessarily true, but it's still irrelevant. Calories and the density of nutrients aren't the issue, it's a question of being full and sustained vs. cost. When you look at that equation, the equation which is relevant to the discussion at hand, then healthy foods aren't necessarily more expensive.

Show me a fast food that's more efficient in "full and sustained vs. cost" than lentils or rice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I'm also going to state that the thing everyone has ignored here, is that the individual going to the market to buy these healthier foodstuffs has to have a knowledge and skill to make/create/prepare their own meals. There are many who do not have the skill to even boil water.

Show me someone who doesn't know an apple is healthier than a cheeseburger and I'll eat my hat. And an apple prepare time is approx. 0 minutes. Same thing with most raw fruits and veggies, and actually, the same with lunch meats, cheeses, and most grains (crackers, serials, etc.). One could easily live on cheap foods that require no preparation and be totally healthy. What's faster, waiting for a #5 at McDonalds or grabbing a pear, crackers and lunchmeat on the way out the door or at the market?

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 08:32 AM

I don't know, but let's look at the article a bit better and see 370 types of food healthy and unhealthy, 2004 - 2006 over time.

Quote:

The first-of-its-kind study by UW researchers found that between 2004 and 2006, the costs of some healthy foods went up nearly 20 percent at major Seattle supermarkets. But over the same period, the cost of some junk foods dropped.

...

The study tracked changes in prices over time and sorted by food quality. It compared the cost of more than 370 types of food purchased at three Seattle supermarket chains: QFC, Albertsons and Safeway.

The researchers compared the cost of food that is low in calories by weight — generally fresh fruits and vegetables — with the costs of higher-calorie foods, such as candy, pastries and snacks that are high in refined grains, sugars and fat.

The 20 percent increase in cost of the healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, was way ahead of the overall cost increase of all the food combined, which was 5 percent.

I'll also factor in that produce prices tend to fluctuate more than Oreos. Bad tomato crop? Tomato prices rise. Buying out of season? Imported produce is more costly. Frost in Florida? Oranges and orange juice prices will increase. Strawberries in winter are 3x the price they are in summer. People no longer buy according to season because it's not something taught nor is it something you can visually tell.

Why would junk food prices drop? Because managers need to move the product due to best before dates and shelf life. Wholesalers offer steep discounts to move inventory all the time just so that the market can rotate the shelf and regain shelf life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Well, obviously. However, there is no reason, EVER, for someone on a budget to buy cut apples or bagged lettuce. It makes no sense. Then again, people are stupid.

Yes it takes skill to cook but it isn't that hard. It took me a couple of years to get to where I am but it has paid off.

But you know what... they do. I live next to NYCHA Vladeck houses and I get to watch people pay with foodstamps and WIC all the time. They buy the crap that is allowed on the list. That list is crap.

I agree, I learned to cook for myself when I was 12-13. I have never worried about cooking something. I'm just lazy alot of the time when it can cost me just as much if not a little more to buy raw food ingredients than to have already cooked meals as take out or delivered to my home.

kutulu · 08-06-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I'll also factor in that produce prices tend to fluctuate more than Oreos. Bad tomato crop? Tomato prices rise. Buying out of season? Imported produce is more costly. Frost in Florida? Oranges and orange juice prices will increase. Strawberries in winter are 3x the price they are in summer. People no longer buy according to season because it's not something taught nor is it something you can visually tell.

You can visually tell that the product is expensive and therefore you shouldn't buy it.

Quote:

I live next to NYCHA Vladeck houses and I get to watch people pay with foodstamps and WIC all the time. They buy the crap that is allowed on the list. That list is crap.

That sucks. They shouldn't be able to buy crap like that with WIC.
-----Added 6/8/2008 at 12 : 56 : 25-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I don't know, but let's look at the article a bit better and see 370 types of food healthy and unhealthy, 2004 - 2006 over time.

It is painfully obvious that the researchers screwed the results. Come on, $36 per day? They should have their degrees taken away from them for coming to that conclusion.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Not even that is necessarily true, but it's still irrelevant. Calories and the density of nutrients aren't the issue, it's a question of being full and sustained vs. cost. When you look at that equation, the equation which is relevant to the discussion at hand, then healthy foods aren't necessarily more expensive.

Show me a fast food that's more efficient in "full and sustained vs. cost" than lentils or rice.

Show me someone who doesn't know an apple is healthier than a cheeseburger and I'll eat my hat. And an apple prepare time is approx. 0 minutes. Same thing with most raw fruits and veggies, and actually, the same with lunch meats, cheeses, and most grains (crackers, serials, etc.). One could easily live on cheap foods that require no preparation and be totally healthy. What's faster, waiting for a #5 at McDonalds or grabbing a pear, crackers and lunchmeat on the way out the door or at the market?

I don't know Will, if you don't live near a grocery store and the nearest food place is a convenience store. You'll find that it's more expensive. It's really simple. I've provided evidence, you've provided opinion.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 09:10 AM

You didn't post evidence, you went on on a tangent about calories and I followed (Benadryl). Full and sustained vs. cost: healthy wins. Calories don't even enter the picture.

roachboy · 08-06-2008, 09:39 AM

what would help is a map with supermarket locations, fast food joints and income levels correlated.
then it'd make sense to debate the ordinance--which in general i support.
typically, the problem is accessibility of alternatives, availability of public transportation, etc.

in principle, this is not an issue that can be coherently reduced to yet another libertarian morality play.
it's more about the geography of class.
you know, socio-economic class, it's spatial expression and food supply.
there are a ton of studies about cities around the united states in which poorer neighborhoods do not have supermarkets, do not have bodegas, are not served by public transit but do have a shit-ton of fast food joints.

if la is like, say, parts of philadelphia have been (and may still be---my information is about 3 years old on it) the city is perfectly within its rights and obligations to act and collapsing the question back onto "choice" is superficial.

the problem is that i do not have the geographical data at hand--does someone else have actual information about this, something that goes beyond nutritional releases for chain restos?

i'll look around tonight if no-one is working with this kind of information--which is a little surprising, given how long the thread is and how pissy some of it has been.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 09:48 AM

sure, you keep talking past it.

Again, processed food is cheaper to distribute and consume. Healthy food costs more per calorie.

You can even go by food deserts where there is no grocery store available but just convenience stores.

Quote:

The Obesity Crisis: A healthy diet often beyond the means of poor, hungry
"If people are concentrated in a neighborhood with no grocery store and little access to fresh fruits, this is not the place to go in and say, 'Eat nine servings of fresh fruits and vegetables and play a bit of tennis.' Get a grip," Drewnowski said. "The strategies need to be targeted and sensitive."

In less affluent areas, a lack of access to fresh produce, health insurance or nutritious groceries that are affordable likely influence obesity rates, experts said.

People often use limited money to buy cheap, calorie-dense foods rather than more nutritious fruits and vegetables, said Paul Haas, resource development director for Solid Ground, which works on hunger issues in the region.

Now here's where you excel, since you've said that poor people work hard, and well, sometimes harder than you or I. How will they have time to cook and prepare food?

Quote:

The Obesity Crisis: A healthy diet often beyond the means of poor, hungry
Parents might also be juggling more than one low-wage job, leaving little time for meal planning and cooking.

People who don't know where their next meal is coming from tend to splurge when food is available, said Sara Lynch, a registered dietitian who works with homeless men in downtown Seattle.

Lynch counsels men with diabetes, high blood pressure and other maladies related to obesity. They come off the streets hungry, she said, and fill up on the cartons of doughnuts donated to shelters.

And for families that rely on food stamps or other government assistance, the beginning of the month is a time to load up their shopping carts.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Again, processed food is cheaper to distribute and consume. Healthy food costs more per calorie.

You're still on about calories? They're irrelevant. I've demonstrated it and Jetée presented an air tight case that you've yet to even comment on.

I'll pet it in simple terms:
What will make you more full, a $1.00 double cheeseburger from McDonald's or $1.00 worth of oatmeal (which is about 1 lb. dry, and thus easily 4-5 lbs. when cooked)? And that's my expensive organic oats. You can occasionally find oats for $0.50/lb.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 10:19 AM

jettee: I'm going buy SHOPPING and BUYING habits of people in grocery stores and food markets. The idea of feeling full as Jetee is postulating has nothing to do with poor people since they don't know or can't tell the difference. This isn't endemic to US, it's the same in any country. People fish, instead of consuming the fish, they sell it and buy rice which fills up their belly more than they fish. This isn't a FEELING this is about seeing MORE mass and volume which equates psychologicially to a fuller belly.

you've demonstrated it's possible, I don't and can't refute that. But what I have been and still am talking about is that studies show that poor people are not good at making healthy and nutrional choices. What can I get and not prepare and eat since I'm in a hurry? a $1.00 double cheese burger or $1 oatmeal? There is plenty of articles and evidence the people are poor choosers in getting nutritional meal and foodstuffs. If it were why would the processed food groups start with a Healthy food program? Because they know that a little education can hurt their overall sales.

rb:
that's the area we're talking about:

I can't locate a mashup of grocery stores just yet, but here's all the major fast food franchises in LA.
fastfoodmaps.com | google maps + fast food

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

What can I get and not prepare and eat since I'm in a hurry? a $1.00 double cheese burger or $1 oatmeal?

They take the exact same amount of time, Cynth. I can cook a meal's worth of oatmeal (1.5-2 cups) in a microwave in about 2 minutes. I can get a double cheeseburger in about 2 minutes (actually it's a bit longer where I am, but let's just say it takes 2).

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

They take the exact same amount of time, Cynth. I can cook a meal's worth of oatmeal (1.5-2 cups) in a microwave in about 2 minutes. I can get a double cheeseburger in about 2 minutes (actually it's a bit longer where I am, but let's just say it takes 2).

Good for you! that's great! I'm glad you are so efficient and speedy. Ask that homeless guy where he can heat up that oatmeal.... or will he just take that $1 and go get a burger and move on?

Again, we're talking about people's choices.. and see we can tell based on studies that people make bad choices about healthy food choices.

roachboy · 08-06-2008, 10:35 AM

thanks cyn--it'll take a bit of cross-mapping to make sense of this.

seriously, though, this is a class geography question and not one of motivation or its correlates in petit-bourgeois morality.
if you can't get to outlets which sell decent food, if you're stuck in a work-grind that gives you very little time to tool about and if the public transportation system is not good and there are fast-food places around that sell shitty food for cheap, then the problem is obvious and has everything to do with problems of distribution.

this is not unique to l.a.

if you think about it at a remove, that many poor urban neighborhoods around the country find themselves without grocery stores but with fast food restos, it amounts to a decision on the part of lovely lovely capitalism to abandon the well-being of these folk except insofar as they can be relieved of their cash by owners of fast-food franchises. it is an ugly reality.
an ugly market market reality.

in other contexts, a conservative might say "think of the children" but curiously that line hasn't come up here i wonder why that is.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Good for you! that's great! I'm glad you are so efficient and speedy. Ask that homeless guy where he can heat up that oatmeal.... or will he just take that $1 and go get a burger and move on?

Again, we're talking about people's choices.. and see we can tell based on studies that people make bad choices about healthy food choices.

So you're saying that zoning should take into consideration homeless people?

BTW, it's not education it's laziness. As I said before, "Show me someone who doesn't know an apple is healthier than a cheeseburger and I'll eat my hat." Short of mental disabilities, everyone is aware of at least basic facts about nutrition. So why doesn't everyone have a healthy diet? They're lazy. They don't want to do the legwork I did for this thread (which probably amounts to about 15 minutes web surfing or maybe 20 minutes at a supermarket). They grab what they want to eat and then go.

Or they do a bit of homework and eat healthy.

I make more than enough money to spend $36 a day on healthy food, but I don't. I looked at my budget and found that I average only about $300 a month for myself on groceries. Why, that's $10 a day and I'm not even trying to shop cheap (as a matter of fact, I shop at Whole Foods and Trader Joe's most of the time, which means my food is a bit more expensive). It's not $3 a day, of course, but I'll probably live well into my 80s and have a higher quality of life. If I really budgeted, I'm sure I could bring my spending down below $150 a month—Ch'i (my little brother) spends even less than that, maybe $130. That's $4.33 a day, and he eats even healthier than I do.

BTW, Cynth, do you know of anyone who spends $1080 on him or herself for food? Not for a family (I could feed a family of 6 on that), but just him or herself? That study is obviously wrong.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

So you're saying that zoning should take into consideration homeless people?

BTW, it's not education it's laziness. As I said before, "Show me someone who doesn't know an apple is healthier than a cheeseburger and I'll eat my hat." Short of mental disabilities, everyone is aware of at least basic facts about nutrition. So why doesn't everyone have a healthy diet? They're lazy. They don't want to do the legwork I did for this thread (which probably amounts to about 15 minutes web surfing or maybe 20 minutes at a supermarket). They grab what they want to eat and then go.

Or they do a bit of homework and eat healthy.

I make more than enough money to spend $36 a day on healthy food, but I don't. I looked at my budget and found that I average only about $300 a month for myself on groceries. Why, that's $10 a day and I'm not even trying to shop cheap (as a matter of fact, I shop at Whole Foods and Trader Joe's most of the time, which means my food is a bit more expensive). It's not $3 a day, of course, but I'll probably live well into my 80s and have a higher quality of life. If I really budgeted, I'm sure I could bring my spending down below $150 a month—Ch'i (my little brother) spends even less than that, maybe $130. That's $4.33 a day, and he eats even healthier than I do.

BTW, Cynth, do you know of anyone who spends $1080 on him or herself for food? Not for a family (I could feed a family of 6 on that), but just him or herself? That study is obviously wrong.

again, you continue to focus like a laser on one small aspect and forget that the author states people buy a BLEND of types.

Quote:

Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods. However, most people eat a mix of foods. The average American spends about $7 a day on food, although low-income people spend about $4, says Dr. Drewnowski.

actually yes, there are families that do spend about that in if not more in groceries. The Revis family in North Carolina Food expenditure for one week: $341.98

What the World Eats, Part I - Photo Essays - TIME

Quote:

Japan

The Ukita family in Kudaira City

Food Expenditure for one week: 37,699 Yen or $317.25

Germany

The Melander family in Bargteheide

Food expenditure for one week: 375.39 Euros or $500.07

Bhutan

The Namgay family from Shingkhey Village

Food expensiture for one week: 224.93 ngultrum or $5.03

USA

The Revis family in North Carolina

Food expenditure for one week: $341.98

Poland

The Sobczynscy family of Konstancin-Jezioma

Food expenditure for one week: 582.48 Zlotys or $151.25

Egypt

The Ahmed family of Cairo

Food expenditure for one week: 387.85 Egyptian Pounds or $70.53

Italy

The Manzo family in Sicily

Food expenditure for one week: 214.36 Euros or $260.11

Chad

The Aboubakar family from Breidjing Camp

Food expensiture for one week: 685 CFA Francs or $1.23

Mexico

The Casales family of Cuernavaca

Food expenditure for one week: 1862.78 Mexican Pesos or $189.09

-----Added 6/8/2008 at 04 : 30 : 34-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

thanks cyn--it'll take a bit of cross-mapping to make sense of this.

seriously, though, this is a class geography question and not one of motivation or its correlates in petit-bourgeois morality.
if you can't get to outlets which sell decent food, if you're stuck in a work-grind that gives you very little time to tool about and if the public transportation system is not good and there are fast-food places around that sell shitty food for cheap, then the problem is obvious and has everything to do with problems of distribution.

this is not unique to l.a.

if you think about it at a remove, that many poor urban neighborhoods around the country find themselves without grocery stores but with fast food restos, it amounts to a decision on the part of lovely lovely capitalism to abandon the well-being of these folk except insofar as they can be relieved of their cash by owners of fast-food franchises. it is an ugly reality.
an ugly market market reality.

in other contexts, a conservative might say "think of the children" but curiously that line hasn't come up here i wonder why that is.

It is a combination of that rb. Grocery stores may not be open or not have fresh fruits or vegetables. My local market in Rego Park Queens in the 90s was like that. I had to go to a butcher and a produce stand to get fresh ingredients. Unfortunately I worked until 7PM and the butcher and produce was long closed. Alternative was a small bodega that had really expensive produce which was also not very good selection.

QuasiMondo · 08-06-2008, 12:39 PM

Once again, you people obsess too much over fat people.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 12:44 PM

But Cynth your argument is that healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food. I disagree with that, and I believe that if that misunderstanding can be debunked that more people might want to eat healthy because they'll realize that it's economically viable even if you're on a very tight budget.

My original statement, that started this tangent was "healthy food is cheaper than fast food". Maybe I should correct that to this:
"Budgeting properly, healthy food can be substantially cheaper than any fast food as far as keeping you alive, full, and healthy." I believe this to be true, and I'm still willing to demonstrate it if you're willing to do the same. Post a day's worth of fast food and I'll post a day's worth of healthy, balanced food and we'll see who comes out with a lower price tag.

dksuddeth · 08-06-2008, 12:45 PM

Just out of curiousity, what is it about the politicians and elites in california that deems them worthy of forcing others to live how they want them to?

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

But Cynth your argument is that healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food. I disagree with that, and I believe that if that misunderstanding can be debunked that more people might want to eat healthy because they'll realize that it's economically viable even if you're on a very tight budget.

My original statement, that started this tangent was "healthy food is cheaper than fast food". Maybe I should correct that to this:
"Budgeting properly, healthy food can be substantially cheaper than any fast food as far as keeping you alive, full, and healthy." I believe this to be true, and I'm still willing to demonstrate it if you're willing to do the same. Post a day's worth of fast food and I'll post a day's worth of healthy, balanced food and we'll see who comes out with a lower price tag.

That's a better statement, but there's still some challenges to that because of distribution costs, the snack food guy has much larger route than the produce guy

I won't have time to collect information in the next day or so, but I'll try to.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Just out of curiousity, what is it about the politicians and elites in california that deems them worthy of forcing others to live how they want them to?

Democracy. We vote on things, you see.

What qualifies someone as "elite" in this context?

snowy · 08-06-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

But Cynth your argument is that healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food. I disagree with that, and I believe that if that misunderstanding can be debunked that more people might want to eat healthy because they'll realize that it's economically viable even if you're on a very tight budget.

My original statement, that started this tangent was "healthy food is cheaper than fast food". Maybe I should correct that to this:
"Budgeting properly, healthy food can be substantially cheaper than any fast food as far as keeping you alive, full, and healthy." I believe this to be true, and I'm still willing to demonstrate it if you're willing to do the same. Post a day's worth of fast food and I'll post a day's worth of healthy, balanced food and we'll see who comes out with a lower price tag.

Will, Cynth has already posted the study that was done by the University of Washington in regards to the actual cost of healthy calories versus unhealthy calories in the grocery store. Evidence shows that unhealthy calories are cheaper, period. Yes, I could manage to buy 2 apples for $1.59/lb, but the double cheeseburger at McDonalds is only 99 cents. Calorie for calorie, the double cheeseburger is the better deal. Is it the better choice? Of course not. But that's all a red herring argument, as
you must remember that the issue here is about access, not whether or not they know better. These people do not have access to healthy calories. Other articles I read regarding the ordinance clearly illustrate that people in South Central have easier access to these fast food restaurants than a grocery store, especially considering most of the people in that area apparently don't drive and are reliant on public transportation or their own feet to get them to and from places. I can tell you from experience that it's no picnic to carry home a week's worth of groceries via public transportation; it's downright discouraging, time-consuming, and an all-around pain in the ass. So what do these people choose? Going to the grocery store that's 3 transfers away on the bus or going to the Burger King down the street where they can get a Whopper, Jr.for 99 cents? We know which is the better choice, but what's the easier choice?

This ordinance is meant to encourage development of access to those healthy calories by prohibiting continued development of access to unhealthy calories.

And yes, Cynth, I think it's pretty safe to say South Central Los Angeles is a food desert.

For the record, I eat a very healthy diet, and find it's more expensive to do so than the diet my roommate eats, which is mostly boxed, processed food. I have access to a farmer's market, though, which brings the cost down. Clearly, these people do not enjoy the access the rest of us do, and we would do well to remember that.

dksuddeth · 08-06-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Democracy. We vote on things, you see.

so democracy is now redefined as the majority telling the minority that not only are these types of conduct prohibited, but we are also not responsible enough to provide for our own choices, so you'll do it for us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

What qualifies someone as "elite" in this context?

In this context, the belief that you know whats best for me and will make me do it one way or another, removing the burden of having to choose from me.

roachboy · 08-06-2008, 01:17 PM

dk--so a decision made by a supermarket chain to pull it's stores out of poorer areas of a city is an example of freedom, but an action on the part of a city to PARTIALLY address the consequences of that decision is oppression?

08-05-2008, 10:48 PM	#50 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I don't know Cyn, but I don't think it's that conclusive. I believe healthy food can definitely be cheaper than junk foods. That's one of the benefits of why I buy healthy (besides the health aspect). Saving money and enjoying a healthy diet need not be mutually exclusive. Example: Trader Joes has decent groceries for a good price. Even eating at Mcdonalds gets pricey (I do this sometimes). I eat #2 breakfast, #3 lunch, #3 dinner: $16. 3 healthy meals made from Trader Joe's groceries comes out to less than $10. (2 eggs, toast, soy milk, oatmeal; turkey sandwich; turkey penne and salad). __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter Last edited by jorgelito; 08-05-2008 at 10:53 PM.. Reason: Add

08-06-2008, 12:55 AM	#51 (permalink)
Jetée The Reforms Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition	A clarification that I did not think needed to be addressed, yet still does the debate of the issue continue in a manner that suggests that which is not proven: all foods provide adequate sustenance(calories) that when consumed in appropriximate quantities(say the basis of 2,000 daily) will sufficiently afford & attain a general sensation of complete nourishment or well-being(feeling full). The above statement is false. It is a fallacy to equate the amount of calories in any food to that of another in order to comparably define its nourishing factor. Of course different foods provide different nutrients in varying degrees, but it is not suffice to state that once one reaches the plateau of 2,000 calories, or some fraction of that during any one meal, can one adequately resolve that you, me, or anyone else will feel fully-satisfied after consumption. E.g. Waking up, subject Amanda, subject Billy, and subject Colleen decide to prepare their respective breakfasts before tackling the day ahead of them. Amanda prepares toast, grits, orange juice, milk, and a serving of ham with honey. Caloric Content of food: 750 Billy on the other hand, goes to the backyard with a basket to hand-pick his meal; eight apples sliced, served baked along with a cup of sugar water. Caloric content of food: 750 Colleen opts to just drink coffee with cream & sugar to go. She pours herself a pint of hot brew into a thermos. Caloric content: 750 Intepret the above as you see fit. I'll just offer up that whether I decide to down cans of coke every waking hour today, I'll amass calories, but I will not feel full regardless of what the nutritional facts state in terms of the extemely high caloric content, among other things replete and devoid, within this concoction. Calories are not a universally equal or even accurate measurement of satisfying or fulfilling one's hunger. It is just a signpost; what you see is not necessarily what you will encounter. Certain foods are more apt to sate hunger by providing a full-feeling to our neural receptors & abdominal constrictions. Research: Feeling full "Eating behaviour is influenced by hunger and the rewarding properties of food (which drive us to eat) and by satiety signals (which tell us we're full), but little is known about how the brain integrates information from these pathways. Suspecting that the fat-derived hormone leptin might be involved, Sadaf Farooqi and Paul Fletcher, both Wellcome Trust Senior Fellows in Clinical Science from the University of Cambridge, studied two teenagers with congenital leptin deficiency. People with this condition eat excessively - even bland foods - but can be treated with leptin replacement therapy. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure the subjects' brain activity as they were shown images of food, both before and after a week of leptin treatment. Leptin altered brain activity in the ventral striatum, a brain area associated with pleasure and reward. The hormone also seemed to help the subjects to discriminate better between bland and tasty food. Before treatment, they strongly liked nearly all foods shown (from cauliflower to chocolate cake); after leptin replacement, the average scores fell. Leptin was also important in linking the liking of food with hunger. Brain activation in a specific striatal region was triggered by images of well-liked food, whether the leptin-deficient subjects were fasting or full. In healthy controls - and in the treated subjects - the response was seen only when people were hungry. The results suggest that leptin acts on the brain to decrease the perception of food reward and boost the response to satiety signals after eating." __________________ As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi

08-06-2008, 02:38 AM	#52 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	I'm trying to change my diet because I've come to realize a snack, or 20 snacks and an unsatisfactory meal does not curb my appetite whereas I can eat a single large home cooked or high quality meal from one of our local home style places and not need to eat again for the rest of the day. I totally agree with the zoning laws. Low income people are more likely to eat unhealthy, they're more likely to smoke, drink and be overweight. I know for damn sure I'd eat healthier if there wasn't a McD on every corner. __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

08-06-2008, 07:58 AM	#55 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I'd like to know where all these people in opposition to zoning live. I've never lived anyplace that wasn't zoned. That is why I don't have a Wal Mart in my driveway. I've covered city council meetings for years and hear discussions all the time about how a business will affect an area. LA is just being more public about it, but this kind of thing happens all the time. Many cities have banned new big box construction. Is that mommy government? LA hasn't banned junk food, they've banned new construction of fast food restaurants. They've decided there are more usefull businesses for that particular area, like grocery stores, or prisons. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

08-06-2008, 08:08 AM	#57 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	will, I'm not ignoring the nutrional value. I've been stating that nutrional dense food is more expensive to produce than empty non-nutritional foodstuffs. It's a food manufacturing fact. Why are apple "fries" more expensive than taking apples and cutting them yourselves? Why is bagged lettuce more expensive than a head of lettuce? Junk food and most processed food has at least a 6 month shelf life. Because the work put into it has a cost. The shelf life of the food has a short span. It must be sold with X days or contain some sort of shelf stabilizer in order to preserve the food which also has a cost. This is why it really doesn't matter to a restaurant if they give you 1/4 lb burger or 1/3 lb burger. The raw materials aren't as expensive as the amount of work that gets put into it. I'm also going to state that the thing everyone has ignored here, is that the individual going to the market to buy these healthier foodstuffs has to have a knowledge and skill to make/create/prepare their own meals. There are many who do not have the skill to even boil water. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-05-2008, 09:18 PM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Atreides88, the caloric value of gasoline is astounding. It's much more efficient than anything you can even get at McDonald's. But does that mean drinking 2000 calories of gasoline a day will give you the same energy as 2000 calories of a balanced diet? No? Is that because the form it comes in is unfriendly to the human body? We have trouble digesting the form the calories come in? It's the same thing, only to a less extreme degree, with unhealthy foods that have a high caloric count. So yes, it's how you digest it and it can make all the difference in the world.

08-06-2008, 07:59 AM	#56 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Cynthetiq: I'm sorry but that study that concluded that a diet of low-calorie food costs $36.32 per day is bullshit. What are they basing it on, buying fresh fish at Whole Foods for $25 per pound? Is it all organic crap? I could easily spend $36/day on high calorie crap from chain restaurants if I wanted to. Our grocery budget is about $100-$150 per week for a family of four (two under the age of 4 so they can count as one). All of our food is prepared from scratch. I have chicken, beef, or pork and my wife has wild salmon or shrimp with just about every dinner/lunch. We usually make enough for dinner for all of us to have the same thing the next day for lunch. This averages out to $4.76 - $7.14 per person per day. We are barely spending $36 per WEEK per person. I should also add that $100-$150 per week covers everything. Food and household items like soaps, paper towels, health and beauty stuff, etc. It doesn't cover beer and about two fast food lunches per week that we have. We do it by shopping at multiple stores and finding deals. In Phoenix you can always find bonless skinless chicken breasts for no more than $2.50/pound. Frozen shrimp (26-30 ct) is about $7/pound. You have to know what stuff is cheap at each place. We go to Trader Joe's, Sprouts (an AZ/CA 'farmer's market' store, kind of like Henry's), and a couple of chain grocery stores.

08-06-2008, 09:10 AM	#63 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You didn't post evidence, you went on on a tangent about calories and I followed (Benadryl). Full and sustained vs. cost: healthy wins. Calories don't even enter the picture.

08-06-2008, 09:39 AM	#64 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what would help is a map with supermarket locations, fast food joints and income levels correlated. then it'd make sense to debate the ordinance--which in general i support. typically, the problem is accessibility of alternatives, availability of public transportation, etc. in principle, this is not an issue that can be coherently reduced to yet another libertarian morality play. it's more about the geography of class. you know, socio-economic class, it's spatial expression and food supply. there are a ton of studies about cities around the united states in which poorer neighborhoods do not have supermarkets, do not have bodegas, are not served by public transit but do have a shit-ton of fast food joints. if la is like, say, parts of philadelphia have been (and may still be---my information is about 3 years old on it) the city is perfectly within its rights and obligations to act and collapsing the question back onto "choice" is superficial. the problem is that i do not have the geographical data at hand--does someone else have actual information about this, something that goes beyond nutritional releases for chain restos? i'll look around tonight if no-one is working with this kind of information--which is a little surprising, given how long the thread is and how pissy some of it has been. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-06-2008, 10:19 AM	#67 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	jettee: I'm going buy SHOPPING and BUYING habits of people in grocery stores and food markets. The idea of feeling full as Jetee is postulating has nothing to do with poor people since they don't know or can't tell the difference. This isn't endemic to US, it's the same in any country. People fish, instead of consuming the fish, they sell it and buy rice which fills up their belly more than they fish. This isn't a FEELING this is about seeing MORE mass and volume which equates psychologicially to a fuller belly. you've demonstrated it's possible, I don't and can't refute that. But what I have been and still am talking about is that studies show that poor people are not good at making healthy and nutrional choices. What can I get and not prepare and eat since I'm in a hurry? a $1.00 double cheese burger or $1 oatmeal? There is plenty of articles and evidence the people are poor choosers in getting nutritional meal and foodstuffs. If it were why would the processed food groups start with a Healthy food program? Because they know that a little education can hurt their overall sales. rb: that's the area we're talking about: I can't locate a mashup of grocery stores just yet, but here's all the major fast food franchises in LA. fastfoodmaps.com \| google maps + fast food __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION! Last edited by Cynthetiq; 08-06-2008 at 10:24 AM.. Reason: added images

08-06-2008, 10:35 AM	#70 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks cyn--it'll take a bit of cross-mapping to make sense of this. seriously, though, this is a class geography question and not one of motivation or its correlates in petit-bourgeois morality. if you can't get to outlets which sell decent food, if you're stuck in a work-grind that gives you very little time to tool about and if the public transportation system is not good and there are fast-food places around that sell shitty food for cheap, then the problem is obvious and has everything to do with problems of distribution. this is not unique to l.a. if you think about it at a remove, that many poor urban neighborhoods around the country find themselves without grocery stores but with fast food restos, it amounts to a decision on the part of lovely lovely capitalism to abandon the well-being of these folk except insofar as they can be relieved of their cash by owners of fast-food franchises. it is an ugly reality. an ugly market market reality. in other contexts, a conservative might say "think of the children" but curiously that line hasn't come up here i wonder why that is. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-06-2008, 12:39 PM	#73 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	Once again, you people obsess too much over fat people. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

08-06-2008, 12:44 PM	#74 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	But Cynth your argument is that healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food. I disagree with that, and I believe that if that misunderstanding can be debunked that more people might want to eat healthy because they'll realize that it's economically viable even if you're on a very tight budget. My original statement, that started this tangent was "healthy food is cheaper than fast food". Maybe I should correct that to this: "Budgeting properly, healthy food can be substantially cheaper than any fast food as far as keeping you alive, full, and healthy." I believe this to be true, and I'm still willing to demonstrate it if you're willing to do the same. Post a day's worth of fast food and I'll post a day's worth of healthy, balanced food and we'll see who comes out with a lower price tag.

08-06-2008, 12:45 PM	#75 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Just out of curiousity, what is it about the politicians and elites in california that deems them worthy of forcing others to live how they want them to? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-06-2008, 01:17 PM	#80 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dk--so a decision made by a supermarket chain to pull it's stores out of poorer areas of a city is an example of freedom, but an action on the part of a city to PARTIALLY address the consequences of that decision is oppression? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite