• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Obesity Epidemic - Causes and solutions.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
The fact that obesity is largely a poverty related issue is still being ignored is mind boggling.
Yes it isn't the only cause, but you just need to have a look around.
Consider the following:
  • Those less well off often have more physical jobs where you may well not want to deal with cooking a meal from scratch at the end of the day (and before someone claims it - a job being physical does not always mean it is a good exercise, if anything it can often harm your body more than help it).
  • They also tend to have to do jobs that are of unsocial hours - again if you start work at 4am or finish work at 6am, you probably aren't going to want to deal with cooking a meal from scratch after work if you then also have to look after kids or parents etc.
  • They also sometimes have to do multiple jobs to make ends meet, which leaves even less time to cook meals from scratch.
  • Poorer areas also often only have convenience stores rather than full supermarkets which have less choice at higher prices.
  • A lot of low cost housing options don't actually include full kitchens (e.g. some "studio" flats) or contain kitchens that are often difficult to use to prepare a full meal (e.g. shared kitchens).
  • If you don't have much money to spend on things like toys, holidays and other activities, it is quite often easier to treat your kids with food. E.g. takeways or eating out. Sure it isn't healthy, but if that is the only "treat" you can give your kids, of course that is what will happen.
  • The more the above issues are the case, the more likely it is you will pass on your behaviours to your children (and so the cycle continues).
No one of those issues is a direct cause, but they all add up.
And sure, there are some people who are just lazy too (which is why you do get some obesity in the more well off too).
But to deny poverty has no impact on obesity is just wrong. And is probably a hangover from people thinking poverty has to mean not being able to afford food at all (which is still the case for some in this country too don't forget, but isn't at all the end of the problem).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I lived someone who was on a very low fat diet because of gallstones I think.
All low or zero fat meals and food in the house - no problem, but the line was drawn against skimmed milk. urrgh.. So I bought my own semi skimmed milk.

My parents have bought UHT skimmed milk (yeurgh x2) ever since Chernobyl (due to the issue of irradiated cattle), and I have refused to drink it pretty much ever since, insisting on my own bottle of non-UHT semi.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
My parents have bought UHT skimmed milk (yeurgh x2) ever since Chernobyl (due to the issue of irradiated cattle), and I have refused to drink it pretty much ever since, insisting on my own bottle of non-UHT semi.
Never had much of an issue with UHT myself; once it's in tea or on cereal it's barely any different. When I drink it I sometimes prefer it slightly!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Never had much of an issue with UHT myself; once it's in tea or on cereal it's barely any different. When I drink it I sometimes prefer it slightly!

Yeurgh. There's pretty much no reason to buy it now (unless you don't have refrigeration, for that reason I sometimes put up with it when camping) as the pure-filtered type stuff (Arla PurFiltre was first, but the supermarkets all do their own now) keeps for a good two weeks unopened and far longer than unfiltered milk normally, and tastes nicer (a bit "cleaner") to me too.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
Yeurgh. There's pretty much no reason to buy it now (unless you don't have refrigeration, for that reason I sometimes put up with it when camping) as the pure-filtered type stuff (Arla PurFiltre was first, but the supermarkets all do their own now) keeps for a good two weeks unopened and far longer than unfiltered milk normally, and tastes nicer (a bit "cleaner") to me too.
That said, there's no reason not to buy it if you don't mind the taste, as it often works out slightly cheaper and because it's not refrigerated it's in theory less environmentally damaging.

I've never actually tried the filtered stuff.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That said, there's no reason not to buy it if you don't mind the taste, as it often works out slightly cheaper and because it's not refrigerated it's in theory less environmentally damaging.

Also you can stack the cupboard full of it and so never run out when the shop's shut as occasionally happens with fresh.

Can't stand it, though. Like some other things, I wonder if the particular taste involved is only repulsive to those with specific genetics?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
The fact that obesity is largely a poverty related issue is still being ignored is mind boggling.

I wouldn't say it's being ignored. I would say it's more a case of, that your statement that it's largely a poverty-related issue is plain wrong. Yes there is some influence. All the specific examples you gave are at least to some extent valid points that will each have some small impact on obesity. But it isn't the main reason for obesity. If poverty was the direct cause of most obesity, then you'd expect that just about everyone through the 18th and 19th centuries up until at least the 1950s would have been obese - and that's patently not the case.

Or do you think that the millions of people who routinely eat in McDonalds or who buy calorie-laden takeaways that are often full of hidden fat and sugar are mostly only buying these expensive takeaways because they can't afford to buy the bread or the fruit at their local shops?

But to deny poverty has no impact on obesity is just wrong. And is probably a hangover from people thinking poverty has to mean not being able to afford food at all (which is still the case for some in this country too don't forget, but isn't at all the end of the problem).

I don't think anyone in this thread is denying that poverty has no impact on obesity. Some of us are disagreeing that it's the only (or the main) impact on obesity. And some of us are expressing the view that, alongside Government action, there needs to be more individual responsibility.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Or do you think that the millions of people who routinely eat in McDonalds or who buy calorie-laden takeaways that are often full of hidden fat and sugar are mostly only buying these expensive takeaways because they can't afford to buy the bread or the fruit at their local shops?

True. If you can afford to buy takeaways (unless you're talking a simple small bag of chips which is still relatively cheap - but as soon as you add even sausage or pie to it the price goes up rather) you absolutely can afford to buy fresh meat, fruit and vegetables as they are cheaper than takeaways - a LOT cheaper. Anyone saying that isn't the case is simply making excuses.

You can feed a family for a few days on fresh food for the cost of a large Domino's pizza, side and drink, let alone a family's worth.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
You can feed a family for a few days on fresh food for the cost of a large Domino's pizza, side and drink, let alone a family's worth.
These days the pricing of takeaway pizzas is somewhat random, with small pizzas sometimes being more expensive than medium ones, discounts if you buy specific types in combination, and just random deals that they decide to put on. Very different to any other takeaway.

But you can make some really quite decent meals very cheaply. For example, from Sainsburys - bag of pasta is 60p, tomato sauce is 55p. Add some vegetables on the side - let's say sweetcorn (70p) and carrots (about 40p) and you have a quick meal enough to feed a couple of people for less than £3. It's not the most nutritious thing you'll ever eat, but it's a hell of a lot better for you than the average takeaway.

I know it's not a miracle solution that I've just presented, but hopefully I've quelled the assumption that people eat takeaway meals because they're the cheapest or healthiest option available to them.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
These days the pricing of takeaway pizzas is somewhat random, with small pizzas sometimes being more expensive than medium ones, discounts if you buy specific types in combination, and just random deals that they decide to put on. Very different to any other takeaway

To be fair that is an interesting pricing model, and my impression of it is that it has always been intended to cane drunk people for as much money as possible (because they're too, er, drunk to pay attention) but allow sober people who are paying more attention to do a bit of work to get a lower price.

Either way, the pasta and sauce combo you suggested (as an alternative to veggies on the side, perhaps put a pepper and onion in the sauce?) would be way cheaper. There's a reason students live on that sort of thing! Cheapo pasta sauce to be fair can be a bit sugary and salty, but you could instead buy a tin of chopped tomatoes (value, about 40p or so) and a tube of puree (99p). You'd get about 5 meals out of the puree tube, you don't need much.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I find the implication that ready meals = unhealthy rather curious.

I have a ready meal dinner once or twice a week, and not one of them is more than about 600 calories / 20g of fat. Add in a salad on the side while it’s in the microwave / oven, if really time pressed half a bag of mixed leaves (60p), and that’s a decent healthy and filling meal. No more expensive than any ready meal. And the whole lot is no more expensive than unhealthy ready meals. It comes down to choice, and of course knowing what the choices are.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I find the implication that ready meals = unhealthy rather curious.

I have a ready meal dinner once or twice a week, and not one of them is more than about 600 calories / 20g of fat. Add in a salad on the side while it’s in the microwave / oven, if really time pressed half a bag of mixed leaves (60p), and that’s a decent healthy and filling meal. No more expensive than any ready meal. And the whole lot is no more expensive than unhealthy ready meals. It comes down to choice, and of course knowing what the choices are.

And one advantage of them is, I suppose, that they mandate portion control (unless you get a meal for two and eat it yourself I suppose).

They are however usually fairly expensive compared with making the same thing for a family from scratch (if you live alone, make for a family anyway and freeze portions; actually cooking for one really is expensive as it tends to cause a lot of waste).
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
And one advantage of them is, I suppose, that they mandate portion control (unless you get a meal for two and eat it yourself I suppose).

They are however usually fairly expensive compared with making the same thing for a family from scratch (if you live alone, make for a family anyway and freeze portions; actually cooking for one really is expensive as it tends to cause a lot of waste).

Not necessarily - I often buy Iceland ready meals, about £1.50 each, and often on offer for a quid. I expect Aldi / Lidl to do similar.

But, in any event, my point is that on the argument that those with limited choices or time poor end up having to buy cheap and unhealthy meals for convenience, you could buy cheap and healthy meals instead.

As I said above, you have to know what to buy though.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Not necessarily - I often buy Iceland ready meals, about £1.50 each, and often on offer for a quid. I expect Aldi / Lidl to do similar.
While not expensive, they're still more expensive than cooking from scratch. As an example, I made chilli the other day in the slow cooker - easily enough for five or six meals with £2.80 of stewing beef, two cans of chopped tomatoes for 30p each, a tin of beans for 30p, a couple of onions, carrots and some celery for £1. Plus a bag of rice for 89p and spices that I already had in the cupboard.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
The fact that obesity is largely a poverty related issue is still being ignored is mind boggling
It's not being ignored, it's being outright denied by people who wish to load the responsibility for a severe food market failure onto the people who are its greatest victims. I don't pretend to be able to understand their motivations. I will make the informed guess that they are people who are not living in poverty though.
You can feed a family for a few days on fresh food for the cost of a large Domino's pizza, side and drink, let alone a family's worth.
A Dominos delivery seems extraordinarily expensive to me. Presumably though they're betting on almost everyone making big orders and getting around 40 - 50% off list prices using vouchers. Not that it's a remotely cost effective or healthy way to eat, obviously.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
It's not being ignored, it's being outright denied by people who wish to load the responsibility for a severe food market failure onto the people who are its greatest victims. I don't pretend to be able to understand their motivations.
It's neither being ignored, nor denied. It's just that the argument: "People consume more calories than they need to because they don't have enough money to eat fewer" is illogical.

Is poverty a factor in the obesity crisis? Yes, undoubtedly. Does poverty cause obesity? No, it does not.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's neither being ignored, nor denied. It's just that the argument: "People consume more calories than they need to because they don't have enough money to eat fewer" is illogical.

Is poverty a factor in the obesity crisis? Yes, undoubtedly. Does poverty cause obesity? No, it does not.

Yes, this. If chicken nuggets and oven chips are more calorific than a healthy salad, eat less of them.

There are other things to consider about health - you wouldn't do well if you had a quarter of a Big Mac Meal for every meal, for instance, as you would have vitamin deficiencies and furred-up arteries. But obesity specifically is caused by calories in > calories out - it is that simple. The other things that affect it generally work by mucking with either the metabolism (thus affecting calories out) or by affecting the desire to eat/satiation (thus affecting calories in).
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It probably is true to pick out the inaccuracy of the original statement, but then it's a part of a sentence which is dealing with a wider issue that wasn't supposed to be a close analysis of this subject. You can pick anything apart all you like to support your own virtue signals about how anyone could, as you do, just choose to be healthier.

Instead it would be more true to say that obesity is one disease among many which pose serious health inequalities in this country. They are linked inextricably to our severe economic inequalities. The root cause is an overall market failure and a government that refuses to intervene in a useful way (although they're quite happy to intervene in subsidy of the most unhealthy food for short term consumption gains, the public health consequences be damned).
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Or do you think that the millions of people who routinely eat in McDonalds or who buy calorie-laden takeaways that are often full of hidden fat and sugar are mostly only buying these expensive takeaways because they can't afford to buy the bread or the fruit at their local shops?

True. If you can afford to buy takeaways (unless you're talking a simple small bag of chips which is still relatively cheap - but as soon as you add even sausage or pie to it the price goes up rather) you absolutely can afford to buy fresh meat, fruit and vegetables as they are cheaper than takeaways - a LOT cheaper. Anyone saying that isn't the case is simply making excuses.

It's neither being ignored, nor denied. It's just that the argument: "People consume more calories than they need to because they don't have enough money to eat fewer" is illogical.

Is poverty a factor in the obesity crisis? Yes, undoubtedly. Does poverty cause obesity? No, it does not.

But not all of the issues linked with poverty are directly due to lack of money.
Specifically with takeaways, you have the time and energy factors. If you work long / unsociable hours, or have a job that is physically demanding (which are all much more common for those less well off), then when your options are spend another hour or two cooking or order a takeaway / chuck a ready meal in the microwave, it surely is obvious why the less healthy option is often chosen?

And then you also have the other bit I mentioned, about treats and leisure. Regardless of what you may think of poor people spending money on takeaways, alcohol, smoking etc, you must realise everybody needs something to look forward to for their own damn sanity. Yeah sure, if you don't have much money spending a fair whack on those things may not be sensible. But it really is necessary for someone not to go crazy. The same reasoning why it still makes sense for the less well off to spend money on TV's and the like - sure it may not be the "best" use of the money financially speaking, but you really can't be surprised at it.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
But not all of the issues linked with poverty are directly due to lack of money.
Specifically with takeaways, you have the time and energy factors. If you work long / unsociable hours, or have a job that is physically demanding (which are all much more common for those less well off), then when your options are spend another hour or two cooking or order a takeaway / chuck a ready meal in the microwave, it surely is obvious why the less healthy option is often chosen?

And then you also have the other bit I mentioned, about treats and leisure. Regardless of what you may think of poor people spending money on takeaways, alcohol, smoking etc, you must realise everybody needs something to look forward to for their own damn sanity. Yeah sure, if you don't have much money spending a fair whack on those things may not be sensible. But it really is necessary for someone not to go crazy. The same reasoning why it still makes sense for the less well off to spend money on TV's and the like - sure it may not be the "best" use of the money financially speaking, but you really can't be surprised at it.
Hence why pretty much everyone agrees that obesity and poverty are related - the factors that lead to relative poverty are also likely to lead to sub-optimal diet and lifestyle choices. But, and this is the point that needs to be recognised, they are choices.

As you said in your example:
Specifically with takeaways, you have the time and energy factors. If you work long / unsociable hours, or have a job that is physically demanding (which are all much more common for those less well off), then when your options are spend another hour or two cooking or order a takeaway / chuck a ready meal in the microwave, it surely is obvious why the less healthy option is often chosen?
Hence why there isn't a 1:1 relationship between poverty and obesity.
 
Last edited:

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,811
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
The concept of obesity = calories in > calories out is not that simple. This is based upon the long-standing notion of the amount of calories consumed is more important than the type of food

Not all calories are created equally and people have hormone imbalances and different metabolisms
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The concept of obesity = calories in > calories out is not that simple. This is based upon the long-standing notion of the amount of calories consumed is more important than the type of food

It absolutely is that simple.

Not all calories are created equally and people have hormone imbalances and different metabolisms

People do have different metabolisms for various reasons, so you can't assume the standard 2000/2500 will work. But the fact remains that if you eat more calories than you burn you will put on weight, and if you eat fewer you will lose it.

Rather than being about "good or bad calories"[1] the issue is more mental health related - why do people choose, and feel strongly motivated, to eat too much?

[1] The concept sort of exists, in that if you eat 500 calories of chocolate that'll go straight into your blood sugar and straight on as fat if you don't burn it, whereas 500 calories of porridge will slowly digest and affect your blood sugar more slowly. But in both cases you've put 500 calories in, and so if you don't burn them it'll go on as fat. Where there is a difference is that the spike caused by the chocolate will soon fall again and you'll get hungry, and eat more - so it won't just be 500 calories you eat. Whereas with the porridge you'll feel sated longer and won't eat more.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
then when your options are spend another hour or two cooking or order a takeaway / chuck a ready meal in the microwave, it surely is obvious why the less healthy option is often chosen?

But my point is that having a microwave ready meal does not = unhealthy.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
But the fact remains that if you eat more calories than you burn you will put on weight, and if you eat fewer you will lose it.
Exactly. It is *impossible* to put on fat weight if you burn more calories than you consume. And that's not being judgemental, it's the First Law of Thermodynamics.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Exactly. It is *impossible* to put on fat weight if you burn more calories than you consume. And that's not being judgemental, it's the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The judgemental bit is the "I can do it, therefore so should everybody else" way of looking at it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Exactly. It is *impossible* to put on fat weight if you burn more calories than you consume. And that's not being judgemental, it's the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Exactly.

There are things that vary your metabolism, and things that cause you to want to eat more, but the equation remains an inalienable fact.

(You can muck with "calories in" a bit, too. If say you have IBS, and you get treatment, most likely less of what you eat will, ahem, work its way through, and more of it will be digested, increasing "calories in" for the same foods - this is why I think a lot of that sort of medication has a side effect of weight gain)

The judgemental bit is the "I can do it, therefore so should everybody else" way of looking at it.

I've never said I could do it, I'm about 4 stone overweight[1]. That doesn't change the fact that the equation calories in vs calories out is the absolute definition of whether you will gain or lose weight.

FWIW sometimes things are a bit counterintuitive. For instance I'm more likely to reach 12 noon without being really hungry if I don't have *any* breakfast than if I have a sugar/carb-laden one such as a bowl of Frosties (which is because the carb spike leads to an insulin spike and a crash). But put whole milk on it and the added fat is enough to sate me. Or similarly choose a more fibre-based cereal and it will similarly last longer.

[1] Consider that against being 6' 4" and built like a rugby player, though, so it's probably equivalent to a couple of stone on someone a bit less excessively sized to start with :D
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
The judgemental bit is the "I can do it, therefore so should everybody else" way of looking at it.
Nobody is saying that it's easy: as @WelshBluebird said, it isn't easy to come home after a long day or night of work and face an hour cooking something fresh. But that isn't the same as saying that it's impossible. There are nearly always options.

For example, @Bletchleyite has pointed out that, if you have access to a freezer, you can cook in bulk and store in portions. Equally, a slow cooker is a comparatively easy (and cheap) way to have a warm meal waiting for you when you get home.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
For example, @Bletchleyite has pointed out that, if you have access to a freezer, you can cook in bulk and store in portions. Equally, a slow cooker is a comparatively easy (and cheap) way to have a warm meal waiting for you when you get home.

The other thing I've noticed is that most people making spag bol or chilli seem to put in a massive tray of mince, whatever the sauce ingredients are and that's that. Meat is expensive, it can be made much cheaper (and massively less calorific) by having more vegetables in there and using meat as a flavour rather than a bulking agent. Similarly chicken curry just gets chicken and the sauce.

I'm no healthy eating zealot (I'm fat) but I must admit I was craving veg during lockdown when it was a bit hard to get what you wanted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top