Obesity: Deadly sin or the new style? [Archive] - Page 2

63dot

Jul 22, 2009, 09:34 PM

The BMI is not BS. The problem with BMI is that it doesn't distinguish between muscle and fat. Since muscle weights more than fat it's very possible that a very fit person has a higher BMI than a fat person. But as long as we keep that in mind the BMI is a good tool to help evaluate most people's ideal weight.

I don't even know if it would work for most people, but for me, it seems kind of accurate.

Iscariot

Jul 23, 2009, 12:20 AM

I don't even know if it would work for most people, but for me, it seems kind of accurate.

The problem with BMI is not truly a problem with BMI, but a problem with the public and the media's perception of BMI. BMI is just a measurement, like height or weight or temperature, that can be used to give you information within a certain context. There is no singular measurement that can determine a healthy weight; even body fat percentage can paint a misleading picture without other measure to back it up. As .Andy said, there is a context in which it is extremely useful.

Badandy

Jul 23, 2009, 12:39 AM

The problem with BMI is not truly a problem with BMI, but a problem with the public and the media's perception of BMI. BMI is just a measurement, like height or weight or temperature, that can be used to give you information within a certain context. There is no singular measurement that can determine a healthy weight; even body fat percentage can paint a misleading picture without other measure to back it up. As .Andy said, there is a context in which it is extremely useful.

I was discussing this in a different thread dealing with health insurance, but I'll bring it up here as well. There should be a way to measure the general fitness of someone compared to someone else. Here's what I've come up with so far.

-BMI is an inaccurate metric for overall health because it's bad at categorizing muscular people or skinny and unhealthy people.
-Body fat percentage is better as it takes into account people who work out (mostly) but it can also give the impression that a skinny person with an awful diet and no exercise is healthier than that person really is.

I suggested VO2 Max tests or perhaps body fat percentage combined with some physical test such as treadmill or pushups. If you had to put a number on someone's overall health and fitness, what would you look for particularly?

Iscariot

Jul 23, 2009, 01:01 AM

I was discussing this in a different thread dealing with health insurance, but I'll bring it up here as well. There should be a way to measure the general fitness of someone compared to someone else. Here's what I've come up with so far.

-BMI is an inaccurate metric for overall health because it's bad at categorizing muscular people or skinny and unhealthy people.
-Body fat percentage is better as it takes into account people who work out (mostly) but it can also give the impression that a skinny person with an awful diet and no exercise is healthier than that person really is.

I suggested VO2 Max tests or perhaps body fat percentage combined with some physical test such as treadmill or pushups. If you had to put a number on someone's overall health and fitness, what would you look for particularly?

Well, when I'm doing a fitness assessment, I look at upper body strength, lower body strength, and cardiovascular endurance against normative statistics; usually squats, push ups and step ups. Ideally a healthy person should be able to bench most or all of their body weight, and squat 1.5 times their body weight. Pull ups are a pretty good measure as well, and if I could do only one test that would be it. Of course, none of that data is easy to get, whereas BMI can be obtained easily from annual physicals.

VO2 max would be pretty good, but it too has a context. It's not unsual for ultra-endurance athletes to be prone to acute cardiovascular disfunction. Just as you've said, there really is no one measure that we can use; BMI is just the most convenient.

John Jacob

Jul 23, 2009, 10:03 AM

I disagree. There is long-term data that demonstrates lifestyle modification has a low success-rate when it is self-directed, but we have little for long-term supervised weight loss. I would love to see long-term studies that look at exclusively the success rate of private studios and some weight loss clinics (not so much the "big box" gyms) vs. the general population.

There isn't (to me atleast) a clear dividing line between self-directed and supervised. Even if I am on a supervised weight loss program, I would need to self-direct myself to go the the gym and get with the program.

Anecdotal example: About a couple of years back, when I was in India, I joined a sports centre about 500 meters from where I lived. They had excellent badminton courts open to the public in the mornings from 6.00 am, and I planned to play for an hour every day of the week. I find badminton to be good fun and great exercise. The club would match me up with other members whenever I went there to play.

So I paid up for a monthly membership. The first month, I went three times. I still made myself pay for another month. The second month, I went twice. I paid for a third month, and ended up going once that month. Then I decided not to throw more good moeny after bad, cancelled my membership and stopped going altogether.

A few months later, I asked a very pretty friend of mine if she would join me as a partner for the morning badminton games. She agreed, and we both took fresh memberships. And hey presto! Suddenly I was going to play every day of the week. :D I lost a lot of weight, and was fitter than I had ever been before.

So for me, it is about finding the right motivation, and that may not happen automatically even if I had signed up for a supervised program.

LizKat

Aug 4, 2009, 11:14 AM

I'm fine with removing government subsidies and I'm fine requiring nutrition facts to be displayed somewhere so that consumers can make informed decisions.

I interpreted the post I was responding to as it was the governments job to regulate unhealthy ingredients such as HFCS and other ingredients that are "addictive" and unhealthy. If I misinterpreted, my apologies.

You can bet the Congress will be doing everything it can to help Archer Daniels Midland keep a grip on one of the few things it's still actually making a profit on, namely the production of HFCS. Their latest earnings show an overall drop of 83% in profits and some outright losses in various business segments, but star player High Fructose Corn Syrup is in the starch and syrup processing group that scored a 7.2% gain in profit to $149 million.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aq7zKgjy1ddw

Since it's easier and therefore cheaper to pour syrup into commercial batters than to mix in granulated sweeteners, and because this stuff is CORN based, and because right now the demand for chicken and beef fed on CORN is low, and the demand for ethanol based on CORN is low, it could be a long trip trying to get this stuff out of the mainstream commercial food supply. Probably gotta slog through the paperwork to visit half the CongressCritters!

Gotta just bake our own goodies instead, and at that leave out half the sweetening...

leekohler

Aug 4, 2009, 11:27 AM

You can bet the Congress will be doing everything it can to help Archer Daniels Midland keep a grip on one of the few things it's still actually making a profit on, namely the production of HFCS. Their latest earnings show an overall drop of 83% in profits and some outright losses in various business segments, but star player High Fructose Corn Syrup is in the starch and syrup processing group that scored a 7.2% gain in profit to $149 million.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aq7zKgjy1ddw

Since it's easier and therefore cheaper to pour syrup into commercial batters than to mix in granulated sweeteners, and because this stuff is CORN based, and because right now the demand for chicken and beef fed on CORN is low, and the demand for ethanol based on CORN is low, it could be a long trip trying to get this stuff out of the mainstream commercial food supply. Probably gotta slog through the paperwork to visit half the CongressCritters!

Gotta just bake our own goodies instead, and at that leave out half the sweetening...

HFCS is utter garbage. It makes your mouth taste terrible and can't be good for you. I avoid it at all costs.

OutThere

Aug 10, 2009, 05:38 PM

Great post and chart here: http://www.stoweboyd.com/ground/2009/05/minutes-per-day-eating-and-obesity.html

Zombie Acorn

Aug 10, 2009, 07:21 PM

Great post and chart here: http://www.stoweboyd.com/ground/2009/05/minutes-per-day-eating-and-obesity.html

BMI is a flawed measure to start with, Americans tend to have much bigger frames from what I have noticed from my Asian friends. That weight is going straight into the calculation even if they both have the same body fat %.

I imagine the study would be similar if we looked at some other calculation (say body fat %) though. Our quick work lunches etc do force us to eat crap food basically.

Iscariot

Aug 10, 2009, 09:57 PM

Great post and chart here: http://www.stoweboyd.com/ground/2009/05/minutes-per-day-eating-and-obesity.html

You could probably find similar correlation between the number of fast food outlets/availability of "quick" processed and microwaveable meals and obesity. Both, I think, tend to indicate that places that have a culture of food tend to be slimmer than places that see eating as largely an inconvenience.

.Andy

Aug 11, 2009, 01:32 AM

BMI is a flawed measure to start with
No it's not and it's already been addressed in this very thread. The only thing flawed about BMI is people that don't understand how to implement it.

American's (and australian's and other western countries) don't have high BMI's because they have "big frames". They do so because they are overweight. The people that fall outside the bell curve are jsut that - outliers.

AP_piano295

Aug 11, 2009, 08:24 AM

When I was 14/15 I became severely depressed and dropped down to 140 lbs.; I was very underweight for my frame (you could see my ribs, it was gross).

What exactly gave you the idea that five five and 140 pounds was unheathly?? :eek:

I'm a man, I'm five nine, and weigh 150 and get a perfect bill of heath from the doctor every time I get a checkup AND I can see my ribs. There is nothing wrong with being able to see your ribs, it is normal for almost everyone.

Dagless

Aug 11, 2009, 08:53 AM

Great post and chart here: http://www.stoweboyd.com/ground/2009/05/minutes-per-day-eating-and-obesity.html

160 minutes eating a day? Bloody hell. I probably spend about 5 minutes on late breakfast (cereal) and about 15 minutes for tea. I don't even bother with fast food.

AP_piano295

Aug 11, 2009, 11:53 AM

http://store.theonion.com/img/uploads/280

QFT

It is up to every individual while societal pressures are a problem they are NOT something that should keep you from getting your own life together.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 11, 2009, 12:33 PM

No it's not and it's already been addressed in this very thread. The only thing flawed about BMI is people that don't understand how to implement it.

American's (and australian's and other western countries) don't have high BMI's because they have "big frames". They do so because they are overweight. The people that fall outside the bell curve are jsut that - outliers.

I know exactly how to implement it (its not really a complicated formula) and its still flawed. Body fat % is a much more accurate gauge of being overweight. I weigh 160 with extremely low muscle mass and I have a lower rating than if I put on 40 pounds and cut to have less body fat than when I was 160 (I know this for a fact as it was observable).

My height doesn't change, but because I am putting on lean mass my BMI goes up? You don't see a flaw in that? Also I don't see many Asians with as broad of shoulders/base as the average American/westerner. That will play a relevant role because body composition is not taken into account with BMI.

edit: I see you addressed this on the previous page, I don't think we necessarily disagree with each other as you admit there are better ways to measure. I merely don't approve of having a system that works "most of the time" and leaves 10% of people feeling like something is wrong with them because the measure is flawed.

TuffLuffJimmy

Aug 11, 2009, 12:56 PM

I know exactly how to implement it (its not really a complicated formula) and its still flawed. Body fat % is a much more accurate gauge of being overweight. I weigh 160 with extremely low muscle mass and I have a lower rating than if I put on 40 pounds and cut to have less body fat than when I was 160 (I know this for a fact as it was observable).

My height doesn't change, but because I am putting on lean mass my BMI goes up? You don't see a flaw in that? Also I don't see many Asians with as broad of shoulders/base as the average American/westerner. That will play a relevant role because body composition is not taken into account with BMI.

edit: I see you addressed this on the previous page, I don't think we necessarily disagree with each other as you admit there are better ways to measure. I merely don't approve of having a system that works "most of the time" and leaves 10% of people feeling like something is wrong with them because the measure is flawed.
/facepalm

it's not flawed as long as you know how to look at the numbers. You should be able to see where you are on the scale, but know your body's unique qualities so you can compensate for the error.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 11, 2009, 12:59 PM

/facepalm

it's not flawed as long as you know how to look at the numbers. You should be able to see where you are on the scale, but know your body's unique qualities so you can compensate for the error.

And that sounds like a good flawless system to you? leave it up to personal observation to compensate for error, especially when this system could be used by the government in the future? Even when there are much more accurate measures that can be attained by most physicians with relative ease?

Iscariot

Aug 11, 2009, 01:02 PM

edit: I see you addressed this on the previous page, I don't think we necessarily disagree with each other as you admit there are better ways to measure. I merely don't approve of having a system that works "most of the time" and leaves 10% of people feeling like something is wrong with them because the measure is flawed.

There's simply no measure that isn't flawed. As per the discussion between myself and Badandy, even some of the more in-depth measures such as VO2 Max are still not indicators of overall health. BMI satisfies a need on many levels; it's quick, it's easy, it requires little information, and that information is available in abundance.

imac/cheese

Aug 11, 2009, 01:34 PM

...I merely don't approve of having a system that works "most of the time" and leaves 10% of people feeling like something is wrong with them because the measure is flawed.

Do you think those who have lean muscle mass and low body fat are actually going to say, "Oh no, my BMI is 26. I am overweight! I need to do something about this."

Every statistic is only a snapshot of certain aspects.

hulugu

Aug 11, 2009, 01:41 PM

...A few months later, I asked a very pretty friend of mine if she would join me as a partner for the morning badminton games. She agreed, and we both took fresh memberships. And hey presto! Suddenly I was going to play every day of the week. :D I lost a lot of weight, and was fitter than I had ever been before.

So for me, it is about finding the right motivation, and that may not happen automatically even if I had signed up for a supervised program.

So, clearly, the solution is more pretty girls at the gym.

barkomatic

Aug 11, 2009, 01:43 PM

Threads about obesity always make me hungry.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 11, 2009, 01:52 PM

There's simply no measure that isn't flawed. As per the discussion between myself and Badandy, even some of the more in-depth measures such as VO2 Max are still not indicators of overall health. BMI satisfies a need on many levels; it's quick, it's easy, it requires little information, and that information is available in abundance.

There are measures that are much more accurate/less flawed, even a simple caliper test would give you a much better idea of your level of obesity. Quick and easy at the expense of accuracy is not acceptable to me.

Do you think those who have lean muscle mass and low body fat are actually going to say, "Oh no, my BMI is 26. I am overweight! I need to do something about this."

Every statistic is only a snapshot of certain aspects.

Clearly these cases are very rarely cut and dry where the person is looking down at a 6 pack and knowing they are ripped. In fact a gain in lean muscle may not be readily noticeable at all, but it will adjust your BMI score unfairly.

The only time this becomes a problem is if the government decides to use this system in some sort of overseer of health scenario.

imaketouchtheme

Aug 11, 2009, 02:03 PM

Threads about obesity are a bag of hurt.

It's like arguing religion.... or global warming. There are going to be people that are wrong about points but have such a closed mind they won't experiment with other opinions.

They hate to give in.

They hate to be wrong.

Iscariot

Aug 11, 2009, 02:22 PM

There are measures that are much more accurate/less flawed, even a simple caliper test would give you a much better idea of your level of obesity. Quick and easy at the expense of accuracy is not acceptable to me.

So go out and start measuring people with calipers, then. Because that information is not
available in abundance.

armoguy94

Aug 11, 2009, 02:56 PM

Not everyone is obese because they stuff their face with food. Some people are obese due to other factors such as thyroid issues or hormonal imbalances, and thanks to our wonderful healthcare system, many of them can't get the treatment they need because they're uninsured and can't get insurance because obesity is a pre existing condition. I'm a pretty large guy and it's not because I eat unhealthy and am lazy, I eat well and exercise, but the pounds don't stay off of me as easily as they may stay off of you. It's horrible. I've been called fat when I was a kid in school, I've had my own family members insult me. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who are fat because they eat like pigs, but until you know everyone's individual situation, just shut the hell up.

Don't even begin to say you should go to health care to fix thyroid issues. I don't know about hormonal imbalances but thyroid issues is PERFECTLY treatable under a natural diet, in particular a raw vegan diet.

AP_piano295

Aug 11, 2009, 04:02 PM

So, clearly, the solution is more pretty girls at the gym.

The solution is a complete change of our culture...

IMHO

America is a nation populated by five year olds.

We like
*Shouting (forget the other peoples opinion ex. recent antics at town halls)
*Big Trucks
*Food NOW and the way we want it (veggies eww I wanta cheeseburger)
*And we hate taking responsibility for anything its always someone elses fault and someone else's job to fix our problems.

OutThere

Aug 11, 2009, 04:30 PM

There are measures that are much more accurate/less flawed, even a simple caliper test would give you a much better idea of your level of obesity. Quick and easy at the expense of accuracy is not acceptable to me.

Clearly these cases are very rarely cut and dry where the person is looking down at a 6 pack and knowing they are ripped. In fact a gain in lean muscle may not be readily noticeable at all, but it will adjust your BMI score unfairly.

The only time this becomes a problem is if the government decides to use this system in some sort of overseer of health scenario.

BMI is scientifically established and is a good metric when looking at populations which is what we're looking at regarding obesity. It is clearly not a perfect system, but it provides verifiable data for making statements like "Americans are fatter than they were 30 years ago" and "Americans are fatter than Europeans".

Iscariot

Aug 11, 2009, 05:08 PM

Ugg

Aug 11, 2009, 11:23 PM

Don't even begin to say you should go to health care to fix thyroid issues. I don't know about hormonal imbalances but thyroid issues is PERFECTLY treatable under a natural diet, in particular a raw vegan diet.

Do you have a thyroid issue?

There are many different kinds and mine is only treatable with medicine.

Beric

Aug 12, 2009, 01:17 AM

I thought this quote pretty much did it: "If it wasn't a food 100 years ago, it's not a food today". - Mike Huckabee

As you guys may know, Huckabee lost 100 pounds on his diet.

iBlue

Aug 12, 2009, 01:33 AM

^ Good for Huckabees, really. But I think he lost most of those pounds in logic and sensibility. :p </another topic>

Don't even begin to say you should go to health care to fix thyroid issues. I don't know about hormonal imbalances but thyroid issues is PERFECTLY treatable under a natural diet, in particular a raw vegan diet.

I'd like to hear more about this, please. I am most curious what sort of foods can not only stimulate thyroid but prevent those of us with rampant thyroid antibodies attacking from within. *strokes neck*

.Andy

Aug 12, 2009, 01:47 AM

Don't even begin to say you should go to health care to fix thyroid issues. I don't know about hormonal imbalances but thyroid issues is PERFECTLY treatable under a natural diet, in particular a raw vegan diet.
Only in the case of iodine insufficiency and even then a vegan diet isn't a requirement. A lot of cases of thyroid disease is due to thyroid tumours or autoimmune attack on the thyroid, which sadly can't be fixed with diet.

Ugg

Aug 12, 2009, 04:26 AM

I thought this quote pretty much did it: "If it wasn't a food 100 years ago, it's not a food today". - Mike Huckabee

As you guys may know, Huckabee lost 100 pounds on his diet.

Michael Pollan says that if your great grandmother couldn't recognize it as food, then it's probably a food product, not food. Food products are generally full of sugar, fat and chemical preservatives and to be avoided at all costs.

Velveeta cheese is a prime example. It's mostly vegetable oil, not cheese.

Mord

Aug 12, 2009, 04:35 AM

Whether it's a sin or a style is fairly meaningless, what should matter imo is whether a person is happy with their size and whether it's having an impact upon their health.

Fashion shouldn't come in to body size, I've had a reasonable amount of experience with eating disorders both myself and within my family and they can seriously mess you up.

P-Worm

Aug 12, 2009, 09:14 AM

HFCS is utter garbage. It makes your mouth taste terrible and can't be good for you. I avoid it at all costs.

I mean this solely out of interest, but how do you manage to avoid it? HFCS is in everything it seems like. Unless you are able to buy naturally grown fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market easily, I don't know where to get this non-HFCS stuff.

P-Worm

Tomorrow

Aug 12, 2009, 12:33 PM

Velveeta cheese is a prime example. It's mostly vegetable oil, not cheese.

Here's the list of ingredients:

MILK, WATER, MILKFAT, WHEY, WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, MILK PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, ALGINATE, SODIUM CITRATE, APOCAROTENAL (COLOR), ANNATTO (COLOR), ENZYMES, CHEESE CULTURE.

I'm not a chemist, and I'm not even a chef, so I need your help - which of these ingredients is vegetable oil?

Ugg

Aug 12, 2009, 02:49 PM

OutThere

Aug 12, 2009, 06:56 PM

Here's the list of ingredients:

MILK, WATER, MILKFAT, WHEY, WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, MILK PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, ALGINATE, SODIUM CITRATE, APOCAROTENAL (COLOR), ANNATTO (COLOR), ENZYMES, CHEESE CULTURE.

I'm not a chemist, and I'm not even a chef, so I need your help - which of these ingredients is vegetable oil?

Despite the error the point still stands that it's a 'food product' rather than a 'food'. It's 'cheese' that has been assembled in a factory from various component parts. The ingredients of real cheese are Milk, Salt, Enzymes and Mold.

"Sandwich Mate Imitation Cheese Product Singles" on the other hand: Water, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Modified Potato Starch, Casein (A Milk Protein), Sodium Citrate, Salt, Calcium Phosphate, Sodium Phosphate, Natural Flavor, Lactic Acid, Sorbic Acid (A Preservative), Xanthan Gum, Locust Bean Gum, Guar Gum, Artificial ...

Tomorrow

Aug 12, 2009, 07:20 PM

Despite the error the point still stands that it's a 'food product' rather than a 'food'. It's 'cheese' that has been assembled in a factory from various component parts. The ingredients of real cheese are Milk, Salt, Enzymes and Mold.

Yeah, I just take it to mean "processed cheese," much like American cheese. In the end, however, it's mostly the same stuff in terms of ingredients; the real differences are in the assembly.

"Sandwich Mate Imitation Cheese Product Singles" on the other hand: Water, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Modified Potato Starch, Casein (A Milk Protein), Sodium Citrate, Salt, Calcium Phosphate, Sodium Phosphate, Natural Flavor, Lactic Acid, Sorbic Acid (A Preservative), Xanthan Gum, Locust Bean Gum, Guar Gum, Artificial ...

Yeah, but that stuff tastes like ass - and not in a good way. :eek:

armoguy94

Aug 16, 2009, 06:33 PM

Only in the case of iodine insufficiency and even then a vegan diet isn't a requirement. A lot of cases of thyroid disease is due to thyroid tumours or autoimmune attack on the thyroid, which sadly can't be fixed with diet.

Do you have a thyroid issue?

There are many different kinds and mine is only treatable with medicine.

My mother has thyroid issues and the foods she eats regulates them. I would need to ask her about the diets she's on and the specific foods that helps her. Autoimmune attacks can be treated a lot of the time with food, actually - the thing is, you have to understand WHY there is an attack going on - once you understand why it's attacking, you need to fix that - not by taking medicines to suppress your immune system.. that's what I understand how alternative treatment works. I'm no expert at all but I have a basic knowledge on some things related to this topic.

armoguy94

Aug 16, 2009, 06:35 PM

"Sandwich Mate Imitation Cheese Product Singles" on the other hand: Water, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Modified Potato Starch, Casein (A Milk Protein), Sodium Citrate, Salt, Calcium Phosphate, Sodium Phosphate, Natural Flavor, Lactic Acid, Sorbic Acid (A Preservative), Xanthan Gum, Locust Bean Gum, Guar Gum, Artificial ...

Yeah, but that stuff tastes like ass - and not in a good way. :eek:

It should taste bad. That's awful for you.. you should not eat any hydrogenated products, or any modified (genetically modified) organisms.. not to mention all those artificial chemicals in there that they put as well.

BTW guys and girls, you should really give this YouTube channel a look: http://www.youtube.com/user/kevingianni
It's great for natural health information. They update regularly with all sorts of interesting things.

.Andy

Aug 17, 2009, 06:08 AM

Autoimmune attacks can be treated a lot of the time with food, actually
No they can't.

I'm no expert at all

iBlue

Aug 17, 2009, 06:18 AM

My mother has thyroid issues and the foods she eats regulates them. I would need to ask her about the diets she's on and the specific foods that helps her. Autoimmune attacks can be treated a lot of the time with food, actually - the thing is, you have to understand WHY there is an attack going on - once you understand why it's attacking, you need to fix that - not by taking medicines to suppress your immune system.. that's what I understand how alternative treatment works. I'm no expert at all but I have a basic knowledge on some things related to this topic.

Dear immune system,

Why are you attacking my thyroid? It's not a bad thyroid, really. I can vouch for it.

Love & kisses,

Me.

I really do want to know more about this mythical food that is supposed to be of such help.

.Andy

Aug 17, 2009, 06:20 AM

I really do want to know more about this mythical food that is supposed to be of such help.
Presumably it's not one of those foods that are lauded to boost one's immune system.

iBlue

Aug 17, 2009, 06:22 AM

Presumably it's not one of those foods that are lauded to boost one's immune system.

hehe, yeah. That's actually a slightly alarming thought.

*eyes food suspiciously*

thepawn

Aug 17, 2009, 05:00 PM

Zombie Acorn

Aug 17, 2009, 05:25 PM

I'm overweight, and I know exactly why. I love my food, have a sedentary job and don't exercise enough. Pretty plain an simple. How'd I get into shape? Eat smaller portions, eat slower, exercise more. I did it once, so I know its doable. :) (though I used pricier delivered meals to get the portions I needed while keeping meal preparation times minimal)

The only thing I can rightfully complain about is that it truly IS more difficult to buy healthy food and meals in regular US markets around. Healthy food costs more, tends to have fewer options (unless you live near one of the health food stores like Whole Foods, etc).

Meats are the only thing that I have seen skyrocket in price, especially chicken. Other than that I find vegetables and fruits are pretty inexpensive (even though I usually don't have to buy them). You should check out a farmers market if one is available, alot of those people are just hobbyist farmers who enjoy growing stuff and are willing to sell cheap.

Iscariot

Aug 17, 2009, 08:20 PM

Meats are the only thing that I have seen skyrocket in price, especially chicken. Other than that I find vegetables and fruits are pretty inexpensive (even though I usually don't have to buy them). You should check out a farmers market if one is available, alot of those people are just hobbyist farmers who enjoy growing stuff and are willing to sell cheap.

Fruits and vegetables are cheap by weight, but not by energy content.

For example, it's $2.47 for half a kilo of bacon, and $0.79 for a pound of peaches (cover of today's flyer).

Bacon:
500g = $2.47
100g = $0.49
100g = 458 calories
458 calories = $0.49
9.34 calories per $0.01

Peaches
455g = $0.79
100g = $0.17
100g = 39 calories
39 calories = $0.17
2.29 calories per $0.01

So the bacon is actually a little over 4X cheaper.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 17, 2009, 08:27 PM

imac/cheese

Aug 18, 2009, 09:20 AM

Fruits and vegetables are cheap by weight, but not by nutritional content.

For example, it's $2.47 for a half pound of bacon, and $0.79 for a pound of peaches (cover of today's flyer).

Bacon:
500g = $2.47
100g = $0.49
100g = 458 calories
458 calories = $0.49
9.34 calories per $0.01

Peaches
455g = $0.79
100g = $0.17
100g = 39 calories
39 calories = $0.17
2.29 calories per $0.01

So the bacon is actually a little over 4X cheaper.

I think your math is a little off. Isn't a half pound (bacon) 227g? Which would put the cost of bacon at 4.21 calories per $0.01. But the point still stands.

Additionally, you should probably say energy content instead of nutritional content.

Bacon
$2.47 = 458 calories, 0 g fiber, 87 g protien, 0% vitamin A, 0% vitamin C, 5502 mg sodium

Peaches
$0.79 = 39 calories, 7.8 g fiber, 5.2 g protien, 28.6% vitamin A, and 49.4% vitamin C

Of course bacon also has Niacin, B-vitamins, Phosphorus, Zinc, etc. which further confuses the issue.

Iscariot

Aug 18, 2009, 12:33 PM

I guess if you look at it that way.

That's the accurate way to look at it.
I think your math is a little off. Isn't a half pound (bacon) 227g? Which would put the cost of bacon at 4.21 calories per $0.01. But the point still stands.

My bad. I typed "half a pound" when I really meant "half a kilo".
Additionally, you should probably say energy content instead of nutritional content.

Agreed.

imac/cheese

Aug 18, 2009, 01:53 PM

My bad. I typed "half a pound" when I really meant "half a kilo".

That is the exact reason why we Americans proudly refuse to enter into the 21st century and use the metric system!!!

thepawn

Aug 18, 2009, 03:01 PM

Meats are the only thing that I have seen skyrocket in price, especially chicken. Other than that I find vegetables and fruits are pretty inexpensive (even though I usually don't have to buy them). You should check out a farmers market if one is available, alot of those people are just hobbyist farmers who enjoy growing stuff and are willing to sell cheap.

I was speaking more to prepared/quick-prepare meals to making your own. As that other chart shows, in America we tend not to spend a lot of time "with" our food throughout our day. I'd have to make a "life style" change to make space to carve out an hour or so a day for food prep and cooking in my current schedule.