November 14, 2003
Smoking in the News
I started to blog some amusing conflicting tidbits found in the news the last three days about smoking. As I hit this page, though, of
listings of articles about cigarettes and smoking, I changed my angle.
(Depending on when you get this, the emphasis of the page will likely change. I'm too lazy to take a screen shot).
Here's a sampling of headlines.
A couple of quick thoughts. One, this is almost as bad as diet/nutrition information. The article about underfunded anti-smoking initiatives explains that much of the "tobacco settlement" money isn't going toward stopping the use of tobacco. At the same time, a study is released stating that current efforts are, for the time being, working with America's kids.
Then, we have the conflicting stories from the UK and Finland about a, um, biased source - the former head of a tobacco company stating, naa, probably doesn't cause cancer, and the article that restaurant employees are a major risk group for cancer.
I'm looking for evidence that smoking is healthy, and the byproduct article about Parkinson's (the tobacco chemical brain drug hope).
Now, quickly, before I make my salads and get some exercise.
What's this mean? Well, all I need to know about smoking is not to do it. That's easy as a lifetime non-smoker, not even a puff. It's not so simple for others, of course. The activity killed my father-in-law before his 45th birthday (I believe I have the age right. I never met the man). It aided and abetted in my father's sudden heart attack death at 62. It's something I can't claim to understand.
I'm censoring myself (read: writing/striking this three times and tempering it each time) before I go off into passionate drivel about this issue, so you don't get the last three paragrphs I wrote. It can be summarized as "I don't want to breathe your dirty air, and so I don't visit." Off to make salads and exercise.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Smoking in restaurants & bars is a big issue here right now...our county just banned it, using the safe workplace idea as the basis, but two cities in the county have not. Apparently there's a big revenue shift going to those cities.
I'm thrilled by the ban, frankly, but I'm a reformed smoker, and I understand we are the worst.
Posted by: nic at November 14, 2003 08:37 AM (nUOJD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 13, 2003
Luna Bar Review
There are lots of fitness/nutrition/protein bars on the market today. One,
Luna, made by Clif Bar, markets its product especially to women. Packed with soy protein (wahoo!), Luna bars also offer a large amount of folic acid, and, depending on the flavor/type, calcium and other important nutrients. They range from 170 to 180 calories, and they're great snacks.
Since I've tried them all except Chai Tea, Chocolate Peppermint Stick, Peanut Butter and Jelly, and Orange Bliss, I thought I'd give a review.
The Flavors.
I'll start with the negative. I just recently tried the two new flavors, Caramel Apple and Dulce de Leche. Uh, yuck! They taste imposed...too sweet with a bit of an aftertaste. If I'm hungry and it's the only healthy choice, yeah, I'd eat one. Both have some sort of strange icing on the bar. It's just too much.
Now - two bars "weigh in" at 170 calories; the rest are 180. The two at 170 are Sesame Raisin Crunch and Toasted Nuts and Cranberry. Both are great, and I often use these as cycling snacks (3/4 of one or so at each refueling stop). The reason? Nothing meltable, and that matters in extreme heat. Endorsed.
Of the remaining bars, 180 calories each, the top choices for me all include a bit of chocolate. It's the perfect amount of chocolate. You see it; you taste it, but it's really negligible. Those are Chocolate Pecan Pie, S'Mores, and Nutz Over Chocolate. These are not, because of the chocolate, bike friendly in temperatures nearing and above 80, but they make great afternoon or mid-morning snacks and can even serve as the occasional late breakfast.
So-so flavors? The Lemon Zest is too...zesty. Tropical Crisp was okay, but I wouldn't buy it if I had other choices. I've eaten so many of the Cherry Covered Chocolate ones that I'm tired of them, and Sweet Dreams left me craving more water to get rid of the cloying aftertaste (but otherwise good).
Now, the nutrition info. I'll use
Nutz over Chocolate. Sorry you low carbers - you're likely going to rule these out at 24 grams of carbs for a 180 calorie serving. But check it out - all of the folate a woman needs, and 35% of the calcium. This is great for a person like me who doesn't eat much dairy.
Where can you get 'em? Well, many grocery stores will sell them, as will stores like GNC. I get them in bulk online from
All Star Health, as this is the best I've found with pricing. I'd recommend the grocery store sampling method before ordering, as most people's taste buds are far less whacked than mine.
My personal favorites are
Genisoy Extreme bars, though. That's a review for another day.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:39 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I like the sweet ones especially--Lemon Zest, Lime and Orange Bliss.
Toasted Nuts/Cranberry and Sesame/Raisin are also very good.
Dulce de Leche is awful. Just awful.
I know guys who have eaten them for snacks as well--apparently witthout turning into women.
Of course, I get a lot of dairy and the occasional serving of soy milk, so I probably don't need the stuff in the Luna bars. But they're good.
Posted by: Little Miss Attila at November 19, 2003 03:31 AM (ayJwT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 11, 2003
A Public Service Announcement
I should split this category into Health, Fitness, and Nutrition categories. Look for those, uh, someday.
In the building where I work, there's a nutrition company, the name of which escapes me. The point I want to make, though, is that I was in there one day talking with one of the dieticians, and she showed me two models that they use to visually educate clients about the differences between fat and muscle. The models are made of plastic, each representing a pound of its respective material.
The muscle is very dense, of course - we all know that - muscle "weighs more than fat." The fat, aptly colored a sickly yellow, appears 1.5 times larger.
I'm going to state the obvious for a moment, so bear with me. Weight/resistance training builds muscle. If you "convert" (which is really a bad term because that's NOT what's occurring - in a pure sense, you're losing the fat and gaining the muscle) 10 pounds of fat to muscle, is your body composition going to change? Oh, you betcha it is.
Focus if you will on the next celebrity whose picture you see. Look at his/her arms, legs. Those arms and legs are built with the help of personal trainers. They're built with weight-bearing exercise. Weight training will not make you fat, ladies. And gentlemen, it will not bulk you up significantly unless you tailor your program to do that...and have the genetics to make it happen.
Why am I harping on this? Probably just because I can. I'm irritated with a lot of things diet and exercise these days - others' "gospels." Perhaps this should be a RANT. You decide. It's just disjointed ravings.
more...
Posted by: hln at
10:38 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.
1
It's very helpful. I get so tempted by those "diets" and their promises. Even Weight Watchers makes me twitch in ways I can't quite define. My idiot fiance is following some ridiculous "soup diet" but only until he loses 10 pounds, and he's close - after a month. He'll probably gain it all back. Me? Only 4 pounds, total, in as many months. I'm trying to learn to eat better, not diet, and my stubborn head isn't helping.
I know, exercise would help. I'm fighting that battle too.
But yes, thanks for talking about these things. They keep me sane.
Posted by: Jennifer at November 12, 2003 05:50 AM (kjOoJ)
2
You might be doing your best Don Quixote impression for most people. I, on the other hand, appreciate someone posting this stuff. Lots of people tend to get surly when I bring it up. In this age of instant gratification, everyone wants results now. The other day I was speaking to someone about the importance of changing their eating habits in lieu of, or in addition to, their diet. I mentioned how even a tiny change in caloric intake can affect their weight with the following example:
Say you're eating dinner and you decide to have an extra dinner roll. That's 100 extra calories, on average, so no big deal, right? Wrong. Imagine ingesting 100 extra calories every day for a year. You will be celebrating the New Year accompanied by 10 more pounds.
Probably had no affect on the other person.
Oh, and some feedback on the Weight Watchers thing: my wife uses the program(she stopped while pregnant) and it looks like a decent combination of limiting intake while simultaneously changing behavior. Participants are forced to account for each and every food item that they consume, and are gently persuaded to eat less caloricly dense foods. You are also required to eat a minimum number of servings from fruits, vegetables and dairy products. The dietary mix achieved is fairly healthy. Oh, and people are encouraged to exercise daily, if for no other reason than bonus points are accrued allowing them to add the occassional snack. My only beef with Weight Watchers is their blind support of the height/weight tables. All through high school, I was classified as overweight, even when I had a 28" waistline and 6% body fat. Consequently, I pretty much ignore the tables. If I tried to get down to the weight suggested by WW, I'd have to lose about 25 pounds of lean muscle mass en route. Not a chance. I do have my own handy dandy fat calipers, though, which I find much more useful in keeping track of my weight.
The upshot of this long-winded comment is that I, at least, appreciate your health related-posts. Thanks.
Posted by: physics geek at November 12, 2003 01:03 PM (Xvrs7)
3
I'm a tentative Atkins believer -- and the diet is much different than parodied. The "jump start" is not a psychological thing, it's designed to clear your liver of stored gylcogen so that your body will switch over to a fat-burning metabolism. There's also very little of totally eliminating foods. The "diet" is most strict during the first two weeks, but gradually becomes much more balanced as fruits and more carbohydrates are reintroduced. In some ways, Atkins is not truly a diet, but is designed to be a permanent change in the way you eat. Not for nothing is his second book entitled "Atkins For Life."
And no, your "Kashi" isn't quite as bad as soda. Fiber is good (and is encouraged on Atkins). After that, your Kashi looks like it has about 30 grams of carbs, including 11 grams of sugar. Sugar, of course, will make your body rapidly react by producing insulin. The other carbs (except the fiber) will do that to a greater or lesser extent, depending on their composition.
If you are a lucky person whose body reacts properly by producing the right amount of insulin, that's great. For many of us, though, that amount of carbohydrates will produce a rush and then a crash (just like when you were a kid and had too much sugar). That, in turn, leads to all sorts of symptoms, including headaches, irritability, difficulty sleeping, and
increased hunger. Switching to a way of eating that avoids that rush/crash cycle can be tremendously helpful to a huge number of people. It may not be for everybody.
I'd urge anyone considering a change in the way they eat to read up on Atkins and other diets before they start anything. Most of the information in the Atkins book is available free on www.atkins.com.
And no, I don't work for them, but I've been on Atkins for about 3 weeks. I'm losing weight slowly but steadily, but more importantly, I feel 1000% better. My headaches are gone, I'm less irritable, less hungry, and I sleep better. It may not be for everyone, but I'm a believer.
Posted by: Spoons at November 12, 2003 04:59 PM (F3d90)
4
Clear glycogen! I have to cough; you're talking to an athlete. Clearing glycogen is a BAD thing.
Fat burning! You mean ketosis. You know - the stuff that taxes your liver, makes your breath bad (potentially), and burns muscle BEFORE it burns fat.
That being said, I do use Splenda any time I would "add" sugar (like, teaspoons). If I sent you a list of what I eat each day, it wouldn't qualify, but I hit all the food groups (light on dairy, actually - taste, not restriction), and I'm medium carb, medium fat. I have to be because I'm burning the carbs.
I've not seen Atkins work for anyone in more than the short term. So, color me a skeptic. And the lack of harsh restriction on saturated fat really turns my face red.
Simple carbs probably do produce the rush and crash. I simply wouldn't know - I avoid them in most cases - maybe a bit of bread with dinner, but I never do "pure refined carbs" unless I'm on the bike and planning to ride for more than an hour and a half.
Good luck with Atkins. Watch your kidneys. Watch your liver. Get plenty of salt and water...but you probably know that. And if you're not exercising, get your ass away from the computer and MOVE.
Thanks - well-written and intelligent response, even though we disagree.
hln
P.S. I don't think I am "lucky" - I think I'm careful and eat really well, and I definitely advocate eating often, eating consistently. I eat five times a day, sometimes six to seven (depending on amount and timing of exercise...I'm likely to hit 7 times today, but two of those times will be only 60 calories - graham cracker or some dates to RESTORE glycogen. I use that stuff).
I should slap a full day's diet up on here to show what I mean.
hln
Posted by: hln at November 12, 2003 06:18 PM (CWwGn)
5
I've lost over forty pounds (and kept 'em off for the most part, tho the weight does go up a bit 'round the holidays...) in just under three years, basically by using a Weight Watcher's diet: balanced meals, watch the excess fats and empty calories, more veggies, portion control, and breakfast.
The gf and I have attended one-evening lectures at the local hospital, taught by nutritionists: Vegetarian eating, and meals-on-the-go. Vegetarian because of my cholesterol (we're not vegetarian, though we have cut back on the meat and we have several vegetarian dinners each week); on the go because of the same reasons anyone else might. If you can take similar lectures, I highly recommend them.
Two points I'd like to make: The sugar/carb crash can be minimized by eating protein with your carbs--for instance, a tablespoon of peanut butter works wonders. I don't recall the mechanism exactly, but it made sense when it was explained to me, and I try to keep protein and carbs balanced (Heather, you might also talk about why protein helps one recover after exercise in the future).
Breakfast works wonders. Eating within three hours of waking 'counts' as breakfast; waking up at 6 am and eating at your desk at 10 am doesn't count. Skipping breakfast puts your body in 'starvation mode' because it doesn't know when you'll eat next, and your metabolism goes down to preserve energy.
And I love Kashi, too! Though I'm eating it with soy milk, mostly.
Next thing for me: Gotta get to the gym and exercise more. In the meantime, I'll stick to less meat, more veggies, and fewer sugars--just like doctors have been telling you to do for years.
--Victor
P.S. Did you delete a comment? Your 'clear glycogen' comment seems to have come from nowhere. . .
Posted by: Victor at November 12, 2003 07:59 PM (16A49)
6
I've lost over forty pounds (and kept 'em off for the most part, tho the weight does go up a bit 'round the holidays...) in just under three years, basically by using a Weight Watcher's diet: balanced meals, watch the excess fats and empty calories, more veggies, portion control, and breakfast.
The gf and I have attended one-evening lectures at the local hospital, taught by nutritionists: Vegetarian eating, and meals-on-the-go. Vegetarian because of my cholesterol (we're not vegetarian, though we have cut back on the meat and we have several vegetarian dinners each week); on the go because of the same reasons anyone else might. If you can take similar lectures, I highly recommend them.
Two points I'd like to make: The sugar/carb crash can be minimized by eating protein with your carbs--for instance, a tablespoon of peanut butter works wonders. I don't recall the mechanism exactly, but it made sense when it was explained to me, and I try to keep protein and carbs balanced (Heather, you might also talk about why protein helps one recover after exercise in the future).
Breakfast works wonders. Eating within three hours of waking 'counts' as breakfast; waking up at 6 am and eating at your desk at 10 am doesn't count. Skipping breakfast puts your body in 'starvation mode' because it doesn't know when you'll eat next, and your metabolism goes down to preserve energy.
And I love Kashi, too! Though I'm eating it with soy milk, mostly.
Next thing for me: Gotta get to the gym and exercise more. In the meantime, I'll stick to less meat, more veggies, and fewer sugars--just like doctors have been telling you to do for years.
--Victor
P.S. Did you delete a comment? Your 'clear glycogen' comment seems to have come from nowhere. . .
Posted by: Victor at November 12, 2003 08:00 PM (16A49)
7
AWESOME - couldn't have said it better myself. I have always watched what I eat and tried various diets - including Atkins. I didn't lose true, steady weight and found it EASY to maintain until I met with a personal trainer and got advice on nutrition and exercise. I just started to count calories every day - no matter what way shape or form and only eat so many. Of course, within those calories, you have to choose for yourself what you want to eat to feel the best. If you want to drink alcohol for all your calories a day, you would probably lose weight, but probably wouldn't feel that great or be that healthy. A skinny person is not necessarily 'healthy'. Just like some larger people are fairly 'healthy' even if they don't look it. With my personal trainer, I also found although I did do weights every week, I had to change up my routine and add some cardio with it. Now my base exercise routine just amounts to about 5 hours a week and I count calories. No problem. I lost 25 pounds and 10% body fat and GAINED muscle. It was over approximately 6 months of time and have maintained for over 3 months. I feel so in control of my body - it's wonderful.
Posted by: Lorena at November 15, 2003 10:13 AM (ubhj8)
8
Oh yeah - and Weight Watchers is good, too. All it is is WW counting your calories for you. If you read the packaging, the serving sizes, and actually measure out all your food, you can easily do that on your own. The only thing missing is the "group" support and atmosphere.
Posted by: Lorena at November 15, 2003 10:17 AM (ubhj8)
9
I think that there are a lot of things that Atkins was right about, and have since seriously curbed my carb intake. Since I did that, my tastes and cravings have seriously changed. The main thing that I did was drasticly cut back on the sugar I ate. The main part of that was simply giving up soda pop. I still eat my share of carbs, but it isn't the bulk of my calories anymore.
The other thing that I did was start weight training. I have twice the strength I had a year ago, and my weight has changed exactly three pounds. On the other hand, I've gone from about 26% body fat to about 19%.
Posted by: Phelps at November 15, 2003 03:46 PM (HlHi7)
10
Nice, Phelps!
I never drank soda, so I wouldn't know how that would impact someone. (I'm an odd duck, no?) I haven't done anything to "curb" carbs per se with nutrition, but I have tried to drop empty calories of all sorts from my day-to-day intake. So that means the switch to whole wheat pasta, full fiber cereals, etc. And LOTS of fruit. I'm proud to say that with the very few processed foods we eat here in Noggle manor, I don't get much "added sugar."
Ladies - check out the Luna bar post!
hln
Posted by: hln at November 15, 2003 04:45 PM (yJyUC)
11
Phelps, I'm curious: What kind of carbs *do* you eat? I'm assuming you're cutting out the simple carbs (sugar, basically) but if you are weight training, you need carbohydrate so your muscles will have something to use as fuel.
(I realize we don't know each other, so let me assure you there's no 'hidden agenda' in my question--I truly am curious.)
Posted by: Victor at November 16, 2003 08:55 AM (16A49)
12
Very well-stated! I came across your blog through Live Journal somehow.
I enjoyed this entry a lot. Thanks!
Posted by: Hollie at January 13, 2004 07:57 AM (56Trs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 09, 2003
Trickle Down
A sign in Stephen Lanzalotta's bakery reads, "Senza il pane tutto diventa orfano." In Italian, that means, "Without bread everyone's an orphan."
But fewer customers are buying his European-style breads and pastries these days — thanks to the Atkins diet, many regulars are cutting back on carbohydrates. Lanzalotta says the low-carb diet has contributed to an estimated 40 percent drop in business at his shop, Sophia's.
Some customers have even stopped by to apologize.
Nice, eh? Atkins' "gospel"
strikes the small business owner. I can't help but smirk.
Baaaa! Bread bad. Baaaaa!
The National Bread Leadership Council, which says 40 percent of Americans are eating less bread than a year ago, has scheduled what it calls a summit this month in Rhode Island focusing in part on low-carb diets and how to educate the public that breaking bread is still part of a healthy lifestyle.
"It's too bad that we just can't eat all foods in moderation. But no, we have to do something dramatic all the time," said Judi Adams, president of the Wheat Foods Council and a registered dietician, referring to the Atkins diet. "We have to look for this magic bullet."
But no, we have to do something dramatic all the time. Indeed. Yes, this comes from a "biased" source, but it's spot on. There IS no magic bullet.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:07 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I am a little chubby, its my own fault. I love eat a lot of everything. If people actually ate in moderation and exercised they wouldn't need the Atkins diet.
Posted by: Tom at November 09, 2003 09:17 PM (BRpvk)
2
Can someone please explain the existence of the "National Bread Leadership Council?"
Responses can be address to the "Global Committee for Fajita Advancement."
Thank you.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 09, 2003 11:15 PM (DkJ3B)
3
I will confess to having tried Atkins years ago. Despite the naysayers, the diet is effective. I lost 35 pounds and no, it wasn't all water weight. There were a multitude of noticeable side effects which will prevent me from trying it again:
1) I felt washed out. SInce I rarely add salt to my food, the constant kidney flushing made me borderline dehydrated. High fat and protein with more salt. Heart failure are us.
2) When I'm exercising regularly, I prefer endurance activities. Do NOT try those while on Atkins. The lack of glycogen in the bloodstream makes serious exercise problematic.
3) I love vegetables. And baked potatoes(hold the butter and sour cream). And rice. And bread.
Diets are not the answer. You must change your eating habits so that you're grabbing an apple instead of Twinkie when you want something sweet. Unfortunately, too many people want a solution that doesn't take any effort. It took them 2 years to put on the weight, but they want to lose it overnight. The culture of instant gratification is not helping.
Posted by: physics geek at November 10, 2003 06:31 PM (auFn9)
4
No bread? Then perhaps we should all eat cake.
Posted by: D4V3 at November 11, 2003 10:56 AM (p4vXy)
5
Bread is the staff of life. I'll admit to omitting the "starch" course from dinner sometimes because we get plenty of it from other sources, but really . . . not only is it unhealthy to cut carbs out too drastically, but it's also not the life I'd want to lead.
Posted by: Little Miss Attila at November 19, 2003 03:35 AM (ayJwT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 08, 2003
Ozark Fitness, Springfield, MO
Whenever I'm in a different city, I find a gym for the day. Today, it was Ozark Fitness, which is about a mile from my mother's house.
Which can most adequately be called a Meat/Meet Market. While working my chest in the free weights area today, I saw this woman who was in her 40s, perfect bod, matching outfit, lifting small weights, and flirting with men of different shapes, ages, and sizes. Her top half was highly surgically altered (as women that thin are not endowed naturally with canteloupes). It was amusing. The "gentlemen" were just eating this up.
I got my share of onlookers, too, which I'm not used to. Most obviously was my work on the leg press. I dress for utility at the gym - no little "outfits," and I was badly in need of a shower for aesthetic purposes (hair!). Still, they stare. Not used to that. Gawkers! Turn away, and get back to your lifting.
People of all shapes and sizes in this gym, and that's good. There's even a separate "ladies'" gym, which I think is funny. The machines are all calibrated so that they max out with pretty low weights. I guess this makes women feel stronger because they use more plates (5 pounders)? I coulda maxed out the thigh machine but, naaaa.
Exercising in different gyms keeps everything more interesting, and, like most things, you're glad to be back home working in your own gym. I don't see any gawkers there (gawking at me or others, really) - most people in the free weights, Hammer machines area are pretty intent on their exercises, which I prefer.
hln
Posted by: hln at
01:08 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If God hadn't intended for me to gawk, he wouldn't have given me eyes.
mmmm... sweaty girls in little outfits :-)
Posted by: Harvey at November 09, 2003 09:19 AM (ubhj8)
2
Heather protests too much.
I suspect she'd not be happy if the men didn't look.
Besides, all co-ed gyms are meat markets.
Posted by: JadeGold at November 10, 2003 05:37 PM (sUP4l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 02, 2003
Netflix, CycleOps, and The Plan
I joined
Netflix yesterday. Why, you ask? I mean, it makes no sense. I barely acknowledge the television.
Here's the answer.
Magneto 9004. It will turn
my bike into an exercise bike. And I can stomach a couple of hours on the bike a few times a week if I've got a movie to watch or a hockey game to spectate (or yell at).
So, the not-so-surreptitious plan is to train all winter in hopes of raising my speed closer to the level of
these guys.
Training would commence today were it not for the fact that I strained my neck while lifting yesterday. Everything should be back to normal within 3 more days, I hope. I've been icing it at the recommendation of a trainer friend. It's kinda funny, too. The best (read: most comfortable) solution to the problem of how to ice one's own neck is solved by a frozen haddock filet. Ten minutes of icing (lying on the fish filet), and then ten minutes off. Repeat. Refreeze haddock.
Works like a charm. Wine also helps me to forget that my neck aches.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.
Dual Response
I have two responses to
this.
One is horribly snarky and can be summed up in one sentence: "But have you stopped buying cigarettes before food?"
The second is the real response - what's the best way to fix this?
- Despite the nation's struggle with obesity, the Agriculture Department says more and more American families are hungry or unsure whether they can afford to buy food.
Some 12 million families last year worried they didn't have enough money to buy food, and 32 percent of them actually experienced someone going hungry at one time or another, said a USDA report released Friday.
I want more data about these families. Do they have 11 children? Are the breadwinners working or trying to live off of welfare? I think that the depth and reasons for the problem need to be known before we can get all outraged and think about "the families' needs" and just pour money into the problem.
Obviously, it is a problem, though.
Some 34.6 million Americans were living in poverty last year — 1.7 million more than in 2001, according to the Census Bureau.
That seems directly tied to the economy, okay.
Hunger seems like an unlikely problem in a country where nearly 65 percent of adults and 13 percent of children are overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites).
Barbara Laraia, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said hunger and obesity can coexist because many hungry families buy high-calorie foods that are low in nutrients.
"They're dependent on foods that are going to make their bellies feel full, rather than on nutrients," Laraia said. "The diet is compromised."
I don't get this last bit - you're hungry on high calories? What is the definition of "hungry" for this study? If it's "undernourished," you'll find that with a LOT of people merely because they refuse to balance their diets.
Is there a concentration of the hungry people in cities? In rural areas? In one state or another? These are important things to know before calling to the public and/or government to address the issue.
hln
Posted by: hln at
02:47 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.
1
WRT your snarky response and what should have been pointed out in the article, public assistance is too heavily weighted on the price of food and not enough on the price of housing. So, while the amount available to spend on food seems adequate--the amount of money for rising housing costs isn't. And when it comes to eating as opposed to making the rent, eating almost always loses.
That also helps answer your second response.
The article should have also explained what is meant by hunger as opposed to starving. Instead, it went for the misleading and erroneous angle about obesity.
Posted by: JadeGold at November 02, 2003 03:26 PM (OjRBj)
2
FWIW, the way the "hungry" numbers are obtained is usually through polling along these lines -- "Has one of your children, in the past year, complained to you about hunger?" What parent hasn't had a kid come running up and say, "Mammmmmmaaaa, I'm HUUUUUUUUNGRY!"?
Posted by: Phelps at November 02, 2003 04:34 PM (HlHi7)
3
Poverty statistics are always terribly misleading, to the point they are almost useless. I have a couple of short posts on the subject, if you're interested,
here and
here. One problem with poverty statistics is that they include college students and people in transition from one job to another. They are also based completely on income and do not consider assets.
Posted by: Sophorist at November 02, 2003 06:06 PM (S3wEd)
4
Phelps:
Polling is a bit more sophisticated than your example. And if you think about it, chances are very good the number of hungry in America are
undercounted.
After all, how many parents are willing to admit their children occasionally go to bed hungry or aren't getting a nutritious diet?
Posted by: JadeGold at November 02, 2003 06:24 PM (OjRBj)
5
The USDA has the report up on the website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/
I haven't gone through the whole thing. Back when I worked on government studies, the actual questionnaires and so on were part of the full final report, but that might be the stuff of FOIA requests, not what's available on the 'net.
I remember when my brother lived in Chicago that the "grocery" stores in his neighborhood were pretty much liquor stores with overpriced convenience foods...a supermarket trip required a few hours and multiple transfers on public transportation. I think that contributes to the problem of bad food choices in some areas.
Posted by: nic at November 02, 2003 06:37 PM (16A49)
6
I've done some research on the topic. A few things.
1) That is a crappily written article. The person should have be taken out back and shot. Okay.
2) Many, many people who qualify for public assistance (including mine for the last six months) refuse to receive it. Complicated issues there.
3) Many US families are one paycheck away from being homeless. We have no savings. Fiscal management would help, but at where is the line between teaching fiscal management and giving out an allowance? Those who do end up homeless often patronize food banks and suchlike.
4) Being a single breadwinner family is a risk. If you go down sick, your family is screwed. If both parents work at low-paying jobs, you can't afford childcare.[http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/10/13/bankrupt_parents/index.html] Complicating this pattern, low-paying jobs (like Wal-Mart) often only offer major-medical care, [http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1028/p01s02-usec.html] making preventative medical care non-existent, which in turn makes the odds that a sickness is a major life event fairly high).
5) 12 million families. What percentage of that is the total? What percentage of those were actually living in poverty? Good statistical questions.
6) The Laraia bit is related, but totally not well explained.
a) Eating well is expensive. Fresh vegetables are often more expensive to buy than canned or frozen - and if you do get them, you must buy them frequently (meaning many trips to the grocery store) or they rot. If making a trip to the grocery store on public transportation is a cumbersome and timeconsuming affair (and it often is if you live in the inner city), and you work 40 hours a week and have two or three kids, you tend not to buy those expensive foods. Therefore, you buy foods of less quality that last longer.
b) In truly poor families, you give the best food to those that work physically harder - often the main breadwinner, often the man. If your husband is a manual laborer, you feed him the best of your kitchen - the best meat, the best vegetables - because your household depends on his health.
If you have limited income, there may not be much of the best to go around. Therefore, the rest of the family eats foods that aren't very good, because they're what is left over, and they're inexpensive. "many hungry families buy high-calorie foods that are low in nutrients"
In a typical low-income family, the husband eats the best food, the children eat the second-best, and the wife eats the worst. She feeds her children better than herself. If you have very limited money for food, the same rationale still applies - the breadwinner eats first, then the children (thanking their lucky stars that they get a school lunch), and if there is any food left, then the wife.
When I worked as a grocery store cashier, I saw this pattern played out time and time again, especially with migrant laborers. Did you know that migrant farmworker's children are exempt from child labor laws, and compulsory education laws? Did you know that migrant laborers are also exempt from minimum wage laws? And are often paid under the table? Did you know that because they're transients, they don't generally qualify for WIC, or other government benefits?
It broke my heart to see these families come in to the grocery store, once every other week, after payday, and buy $175 worth of food to feed all 12 or 14 of them. They generally used their money wisely, but there is no way that they could have possibly fed everyone well. And no, they didn't reproduce like rabbits - they live in extended families, so that grandma can watch the little ones.
If you're poorly educated, what little food you buy may be crappy for you, so you're both hungry because you didn't have enough, and malnourished because what you did buy was bad for you.
If you do have foodstamps or other ready access to food, junk food is so cheap that it's an easy way to de-stress. That's why you so often see fat, poor women.
FYI, 95% of the US population lives in a metropolitan area. I.e., only 5% lives in a rural area.
We like to talk about rural America, but the truth is that the vast majority of US citizens are urbanites, and most of the rest are suburbanites. The bulk of the population lives on the coasts.
Therefore, these issues need to be addressed on the urban, coastal level.
Posted by: Courtney at November 02, 2003 08:36 PM (mdf00)
7
I vividly remember living through the Carter administration, when pretty much the only thing my family could afford to eat was macaroni and cheese (generic, in a white box with a black label). It's easy to see how the poor can be obese and malnourished at the same time.
Posted by: Susie at November 02, 2003 11:33 PM (0+cMc)
8
But a lot of the problem is education: people don't know what to buy that is cheap and healthful. (Hint: rice and beans as a protein source. Beef and chicken, used sparingly. Frozen and canned goods a lot of the time, with some fresh produce. In Southern California, the best place to buy produce is at the Mexican markets: the stuff doesn't always look as good as at trendy groceries, but it's cheap. Farmers' Markets are also great places to go when you're on a budget.) The tragedy is people not learning to cook, and becoming dependent on convenience foods that are pricey and unhealthful. Or they go to McDonald's, which is sadder still.
Posted by: Little Miss Attila at November 19, 2003 03:49 AM (ayJwT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
61kb generated in CPU 0.0201, elapsed 0.0867 seconds.
86 queries taking 0.0731 seconds, 195 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.