Today's P-I reports on a UW study which found an association between a neighborhood's median property values and its prevalence of obesity. One proposed explanation is that residents of poorer neighborhoods have less access to affordable healthy food, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. In this context the article mentions northern Seattle zipcode 98133 and its obesity rate which is significantly higher than the more affluent 98103 to the south.
I'm not persuaded by the argument that lack of access to healthy food is the fundamental problem. There are plenty of places to get fresh fruit and vegetables in zip code 98133.
The article also cites a relatively high obesity rate in the Rainier Valley, but there seems to be quite a variety of grocery stores in that neighborhood too.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 12, 2007 09:28 AM | Email ThisSome might say that wealthy people have more free time, so they have more time to work out. But in my experience, the wealthy are the ones putting in 60 hour work weeks and neglecting their families.
Others have said that the wealthy have more money, and so can afford better quality food, but in my experience, the wealthy tend to eat out at restaurants more, and we all know that this tends to destroy any low calorie diet.
Fast food tends to be eaten more by the poor, but even at McDonald's one can get a healthful meal if one has the will to do so. Mcdonald's has some pretty good salads, and their classic grilled chicken sandwich is just a chicken breast on whole wheat bread with lettuce and tomato. I order it without mayo.
Is poverty linked to a reduced tendancy to defer gratification? I've heard that children who are less able to give up a treat now so that they can earn double the treat in 15 minutes are much more likely to become criminals as adults.
Perhaps the same kind of inability to defer gratification leads to both poverty and obeisity.
It's not ALL will power. Life stress and biological/genetics play a role. But will power and deferred gratification is one factor in the correlation between poverty and obeisity.
And in any case, it's better to have your poor be fat than starving.
Free markets and low tax rates are better for the poor than high tax rates and centrally controlled economies.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 12, 2007 10:23 AMThis simple little axiom of basic statistics seems to evade everyone that wants to make a 4th rate study to "prove" some pet theory. The amount of sloppy, or just plain worthless, statistical studies that are passed off as proof of something is astounding. The media is always present to expound upon some meaningless statistical data in an effort to push social programs or create hype.
Of course, considering your average journalist has a 5th grade understanding of math and science issues, this sort of "reporting" is to be expected.
The smart thing to do is generally discount any media-reported study until it's had ample opportunity to be debunked. Of course, they won't print that, you'll have to go search for it at JunkScience.com.....
Posted by: John Galt on September 12, 2007 10:57 AMDuh, poor people often make poor choices. You can even eat healthy at McDonalds now, if you choose a happy meal where the kid size portion is more appropriate for adults, and you choose the apples instead of the fries, etc. Rich people make good choices, that's how they get rich.
If you're poor, and you want to stay poor and unhealthy, eat garbage, eat way too much, ignore the access to healthy food that is all around you, and spend a lot of time being sedentary. And while you are on the couch, you won't be doing anything productive with your time, so that will help keep you poor too.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 12, 2007 11:06 AMYeah, but look at how much corn syrup you can buy for $150,000 in North Dakota!
how much did this "study" cost anyways and who paid for it. stupid question, us taxpayers paid for it in more ways than one.
Posted by: danno on September 12, 2007 12:35 PMThis research has been debunked to a large extent by further research. But they didn't bother to put that on the front page, did they?
On the other hand, real cane sugar tastes a hell of a lot better than corn syrup.
The true causes of obesity, as determined by many large studies conducted over the last century: overeating, lack of physical activity, excess carbohydrates as a portion of the diet
So, eat less, work out more, stay away from sugars and starches, have another steak instead.
Posted by: John Galt on September 12, 2007 12:39 PM2. Mark Twain said there are lies, damn lies and then there are statisitics.
3. Isn't there a study that said when countries get Mc Donalds restaurants there is less of a chance of them going to war with their neighbors, I guess they are too fat to pick up arms.
4. My best guess is a combination of education and convenience. Contrary to popular belief, many working people often work two or more jobs and if there are children in the house, they often get fast food which is packed with calories. The education piece is important because many low-income parents tend to have children early and often their parenting skills, not love or affection for the child can be improved.
Anyhow, your guess is as good as mine and let's apply for a grant to study anyone's guess.
Posted by: WVH on September 12, 2007 01:26 PM"U.S. Obesity,Weight Gain,
and Socioeconomic Status
www.cherp.org
Income and income
inequality are not the
entire answer to the
challenge of weight gain
and rising levels of
obesity in the U.S.
CHERP Policy Brief
Virginia W. Chang, MD, PhD
CHERP Investigator
Assistant Professor
Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
and Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania
VOLUME III, ISSUE 1: FALL 2005
Context: People in the U.S. are getting fatter. Unhealthy weight is no longer an
individual issue, but a national problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control
and the National Institutes of Health, overweight and obesity and their associated
health problems carry direct and indirect costs approaching those of cigarette smoking.
The root causes for the national weight gain are complex and poorly understood;
however, researchers are looking to race, socioeconomics, geography, and other factors
in their attempts to understand why the U.S. is becoming so fat.
Background
Recent efforts to understand the rising levels of overweight and obesity have
focused on income as a factor. However, while one can document links between
socioeconomic position and health measures such as mortality, the relationship
between socioeconomic status and intermediate health endpoints, such as weight,
are not well established.
While there are many measures of socioeconomic status, income and income inequality
have been shown to affect certain aspects of health. Income provides information about
resources available to individuals. Income inequality-the amount of income difference
in a given area-provides information about the differences in resources among area
residents. Greater income inequality is thought to be detrimental to the health of
community members.
In two recent research projects, CHERP investigator Virginia Chang, MD, PhD and
colleagues examined the roles that income and income inequality play in overweight
and obesity in the U.S.
Income and Weight Over Time
Data
• Chang and colleagues used four successive waves of the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the relationship between income and
body mass index (BMI) and income and obesity among U.S. adults from 1971-2002.
The researchers used survey waves NHANES I (1971-1974), II (1976-1980), III
(1988-1994), and continuous (1999-2002). The study included non-pregnant
non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Mexican American adults aged 18-64.
All data were analyzed separately by race and sex, revealing important differences
among the groups."
Another study links suburban sprawl to obesity:
"Vandegrift D, Yoked T.
School of Business, The College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington Road, Ewing 08628-0718, USA. vandedon@tcnj.edu
In a decade of economic growth and rising income, obesity has risen dramatically. This is puzzling when researchers have found that there is an inverse relation between income and obesity. This paper argues that new location patterns produced by suburban sprawl are an important cause of rising obesity rates. New location patterns are such that work, school and social activities are not as easily accessible by foot. Changes in sprawl then drive changes in the causes of obesity identified by medical researchers (e.g., low activity levels). We define sprawl as increases in the amount of developed land, holding population constant. Determinants and outcomes are analyzed on a population basis. We use state-level data from the 1990s on obesity to show that states that increased the amount of developed land (holding population constant) showed larger increases in obesity. As a result, town planning efforts to reduce sprawl may be justified not only on aesthetic grounds but also based on efforts to reduce the costs associated with treating medical conditions related to obesity."
PMID: 15177197 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I don't think it is as simple as saying low-income people are fat.
Is that because all you Washington Farmers are part of the Socialist collective known as the "Corn Lobby"?
Yep...guess so...guess you'll be supporting Barrack "Corn Man" Obama in 2008.
Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain." Whether it actually does do this is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.
Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher [blood] levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle, concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be undesirable, particularly for men."
Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 12, 2007 02:07 PM$144,000 in ND buys you this house.
http://realestate.yahoo.com/North_Dakota/Bismarck/Homes_for_sale/e7c08e9978e0afdc5b8c4b91109e015c;_ylt=AgqRKhfsk7JGELhnyjI2GQnnMrQs?typeBak=realestate&p=Bismarck%2C+ND&type=existing&search=Search&priceLow=&priceHigh=150%2C000&bedroomLow=&bathroomLow=
If poor people had sense they'd leave Seattle zip codes in droves and stake a home in ND.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 12, 2007 02:16 PMThis whole sentence can be summed up in two words: SELF DISCIPLINE. I believe the reason there is correlation between the poor and the obese is because both category of people are generally less disciplined in their habits, be it money management or eating. Without self discipline one cannot get out of poverty or obesity unless one is blessed with something outside of him, for example, inheritance in money or genes, good luck in winning lotteries, etc.
Posted by: DopioLover on September 12, 2007 02:52 PMChoices. responsibility. that is what life is about. no guarantees. just your next breath--if that. deal with it. understandable to the common man; escapes the government hacks.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 12, 2007 08:37 PM2. I believe that the primary cause of obesity is eating too much given the level of activity of any particular individual. But, not always, i guess there are fat genes.
3. As so many things in life are affected by education, this one involves education for all sides. Before you ask, no I am not obese. Children, particularly those who watch a lot of TV need to become active and eat better. I believe that several years ago, some churches gave typical middle and upper income people the same daily food allowance that those on food stamps got and challenged them to live on that amount. Some made good choices and many other did not. Many made the same fast food filling choices. Whaile I was in grad school, Mc Donald's Dollar menu literally saved me from starvation.
So, when posters here talk about choices, maybe there should be some context.
For those who want to have a context for "bad choices" Nickle and Dimed provides that:
Product Details
ISBN: 0805063897
ISBN-13: 9780805063899
Format: Paperback, 240pp
Publisher: Henry Holt & Company, Incorporated
Edition Description: REV
Edition Number: 1
Sales Rank: 735
From Our Editors
To understand life beyond boom-time America, Barbara Ehrenreich spent months laboring as a cleaning woman; as a waitress; and as a Wal-Mart sales clerk. Her revelations about these hard, supposedly "unskilled" jobs and the difficulty of making ends meet in the U.S. gives this book a powerful, personal edge.
Annotation
Our sharpest and most original social critic goes "undercover" as an unskilled worker to reveal the dark side of American prosperity.
From the Publisher
Millions of Americans work for poverty-level wages, and one day Barbara Ehrenreich decided to join them. She was inspired in part by the rhetoric surrounding welfare reform, which promised that any job equals a better life. But how can anyone survive, let alone prosper, on $6 to $7 an hour? To find out, Ehrenreich moved from Florida to Maine to Minnesota, taking the cheapest lodgings available and accepting work as a waitress, hotel maid, house cleaner, nursing-home aide, and Wal-Mart salesperson. She soon discovered that even the "lowliest" occupations require exhausting mental and physical efforts. And one job is not enough; you need at least two if you intend to live indoors.
Nickel and Dimed reveals low-wage America in all its tenacity, anxiety, and surprising generosity--a land of Big Boxes, fast food, and a thousand desperate strategies for survival. Instantly acclaimed for its insight, humor, and passion, this book is changing the way America perceives its working poor.
Posted by: WVH on September 12, 2007 10:21 PM
Even attractively packaged, a quarter pounder with cheese super sized combo meal is $6. Ground beef is $4 a pound. The beef costs a buck. A quart of milk costs a buck, even at $4 a gallon. A hamburger bun costs a quarter. You can get a freakin 5lb bag of spuds for $4.
Fast food is cheaper than healthy food? Bull.
Poor people may go to cheaper restuarants, but if they were really poor they would be shopping at the safeway instead of driving thru. A burger, fries and a coke have the same number of calories whether you get them at Wendy's, Hooters, or the Four Seasons.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on September 12, 2007 11:55 PMI lived on Mc Donald's side salad which costs a dollar and if you get caesar dressing, many restaurants will give you croutons. The Mc Donalds on First Hill sells a double cheesburger for a dollar, downtown on 3rd and union, it was a $1.49 and so was the fish sandwich. One can get a yogurt with fruit for a buck. I could eat for around $3 a day and how I staved off obesity was to toss the bread and just eat the meat with the salad. Been there, done that, I know.
Posted by: WVH on September 13, 2007 12:03 AMThe "rich" people don't have to worry about getting run down by some latte drinking, cell phone talking, maniac eating a Burgermaster with fries and a coke on their way to Dicks for a milkshake doing 40-mph through the neighborhood.
The "rich" people in 98103 get to take nice walks. The "poor" people in 98133 have to drive, if they value there lives, thus making them more "poor" because all the extra money spent on gas. The dreaded downward spiral....
Cheap produce in 98133? Lenny's on Greenwood and 105th.
Where ever you are, in N. America, almost always you are where you are at (fat, rich, healthy, poor, etc...) due to the decisions you make.
Want Seattle to be the "greenest" city on the planet? Quit pouring money down the drain on: Viaduct votes, 8mil on surface street option studies, loot rail, the monorail, inefficient city halls, inefficient (and some ugly) libraries, etc. etc. etc. and build sidewalks!
Posted by: CB on September 13, 2007 06:45 AMCB said:
"Where ever you are, in N. America, almost always you are where you are at (fat, rich, healthy, poor, etc...) due to the decisions you make."
1. Does this include children, after all when did they decide who their parents would be? So, if you happen to be born to an idiot, if you are a child, then you should starve and go to inferior schools? Is this your thought?
2. Does this include people born into affluent families and receive all material advantages, although I have met many blessed with wealth that are incrediably poor of spirit and soul. What decision did they make to be born into affluence?
I know that one of the pilars of conservative mantra is personal responsibiliy for decisons that one has made and I accept that, but there are many circulstances that are not thte result of a decision by a particular individual, like birth into a particular family.
I believe that the mortgage crisis and in some parts of the country deflation in housing prices will hit. For those caught in that situation who may lose their houses and be caught in a personal financial crisis, the error of their ways was what, buying a house? Isn't that the American dream? Not everyone that suffers a bout with poverty made poor decisions, some have an illness and many middle income working people are underinsured for health issues, they are literally one major illness away from ruin.
So, what about people that did not make poor decisions. I went to grad school and was poor and went without heat, that was my choice, but are you saying that going to grad school was a poor choice?
Many more affluent, while they are affluent and often that is an illusion as so many in this society are one paycheck away from the streets do not understand the world of "Nickeled and Dimed."
Posted by: WVH on September 13, 2007 07:45 AMOne off-hand criticism I have about lifting "Nickeled and Dimed" as a somehow representative of the plight of the poor is that the author purposely chose to maintain a low wage existence. It was a forced circumstance and not necessarily the only options available. The author, in effect "chose" to live in poverty.
When I got out of college, my spouse and I had 40k in school debt, we were helping my in-laws with financial difficulties and we were making about $4.00 an hour. This was in 1988. Our wages were barely above the state minimum at the time. We ate well enough. We lived in an apartment, we enjoyed life, we paid our bills, we had no needs that went unmet, just wants that did not get fulfilled.
2 people making minimum wage can share an apartment or better yet, do as I did as I worked my way through college, share with several roommates. It is all a matter of decisions and choices. It took me several more years of working and climbing up the ladder before I made anything like a decent salary. I did not double the minimum wage until the mid 90's. A person stuck in minimum wage jobs is not making good choices. They are not learning skills that can lead to more responsibilities or they are going from job to job because they are not staying in one place or are being unreliable at work or something.
Anyway, books like the one you cite seem to be an artificial look at the situation and do not account for all the factors involved, so I am not certain it is an accurate portrayal of reality. But then, I have not read the book and am only going on the issue you are referring and it might not be fully representative of the book in its entirety.
Posted by: Eyago on September 13, 2007 08:34 AMHe noted that Oprah gave it raves, and the UNC Chapel Hill made it recommended reading for all incoming freshmen.
Posted by: russell garrard on September 13, 2007 02:22 PMA couple of points:
1. The book gives a snap shot of the world and the best response is just as many individuals cycle on and off public assistance, the average time use to be about 18 months, many people may cycle in and out of the "Nickeled and Dimed" world as well. The issue with public assistance is because of the work requirement, the rolls are getting to the hard core difficult cases. My area of interest is low-income children. Now, what is to be done with children who didn't make a wise decision in their choice of parents.
2. Just as there are different learning styles, there are different views regarding the "oughts."
A highly legalistic individual would take the position that there is absolute freedom of choice and because of that each individual should be prepared to suffer the consequences of their decisions. My view is a bit more textured regarding the "oughts." Yes, there is personal responsibility, but what happens in some situations when life intervenes. Suppose there is a middle or even upper income family with health insurance that covers 80% of bsaic cost and only some of out of pocket. Their child gets ill and needs a bone marrow transplant. The cost of all treatment could from $500,000 to $1,000,000 and there is a 60-70% chance of survival. Should they take it? Suppose what had been a financially prudent situation, then becomes untenable? Should they save one child and sink the family. I guess my view is that people arrive at different points for many reasons.
3. I know that we have discussed the issue of choices before regarding children. My view is no one should have children that they can't financially or emotionally be responsible for. Many people don't follow my view and they have children anyhow. Should the children suffer because they were born to idiots?
4. The book is an observation of a reporter entering the subject of the reporting, much like embedded reporters in Iraq. They have their observtions of a particular situation. The thing you and your wife had is although you faced many challenges early on, you did not have children. That adds a layer of complexity especially when arranging for good childcare at an affordable rate and what to do if a child gets sick and the caregiver won't allow a sick child in. Many people lose jobs or stay at lower paying jobs because of childcare considerations.
I believe this situation is a bit more complex than if one makes bad decisions, tough.
Posted by: WVH on September 13, 2007 02:33 PM98133 - spends the day in front of TV watching Povich, Montel and Divorce Court while eating Ding Dongs washed down with fruit punch.
98103 - spends the day working, learning, exercising, yard work.
Posted by: TY on September 13, 2007 02:34 PM
This is an article about Bush's position:
Bush Urges Stepped-Up Campaign Against Childhood Obesity
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 2, 2007; Page A05
President Bush yesterday added his voice to the growing debate over childhood obesity, as he met at the White House with representatives of some of the companies considered responsible for aggravating the problem and urged them to stress the importance of healthful eating and physical fitness in their marketing campaigns.
Among those at the morning meeting in the White House Roosevelt Room were the president of McDonald's USA, purveyor of the Happy Meal; a senior executive of Kraft Foods, which sells macaroni and cheese in the shapes of popular children's characters; and the chief executive of PepsiCo., maker of soft drinks and Doritos, among other products.
"Childhood obesity is a costly problem for the country," Bush said before starting the private meeting, which also included first lady Laura Bush. "We believe it is necessary to come up with a coherent strategy to help folks all throughout our country cope with the issue."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101701.html
This is what Black doctors are saying:
Diabetes and Obesity
by Glen Ellis,
Posted: 2007-07-20 12:34:04
Symptoms of Diabetes
If you're constantly drinking it could mean health trouble. Excessive thirst is one of the many signs of diabetes.
Learn the Symptoms
More on Health:
Healthy Eating on the Go Seven Symptoms You Can't Ignore Black Women and AIDS Suicide Among Black Men Alcoholism Cervical Cancer and HPV Courtesy of BlackDoctor.org
Obesity has reached near epidemic proportions in the United States. Obesity rate are high among African Americans, particularly African American women. The risk of diabetes is significantly related to obesity.
Cultural changes in food preparation and family meals likely play a role in the problem. In 1934, all food was prepared from scratch and was largely consumed based on seasonal harvests. The advent of frozen food in 1954 opened up a wider array of food choices, and the introduction of the microwave oven in 1974 meant that children could take a far more active role in choosing and preparing foods without parental guidance.
Adding to this problem is the recent trend of eating food that has been prepared outside the home. National food surveys show that about 30 percent of family meals nationwide are fixed outside the home, regardless of family income. Such meals often are higher in calories and fat and contain larger portions than those prepared at home
Results from studies indicate that there is a relationship between obesity and the increased risk of diabetes. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. It is estimated that 14 million Americans had diabetes in 1995 and that number is expected to increase to 22 million in the year 2025. Diabetes is a major health problem for African Americans for whom the prevalence rate is 1.6 times the rate for whites.
http://blackvoices.aol.com/black_lifestyle/health_headlines_features_advice/canvas/feature_article/_a/diabetes-and-obesity/20061120150609990001
Now, can you point to a cite which said Bush was racist for pointing out the obvious?
1. Have either of you read the book?
2. Let's get the discussion out of this particular book. In your experience or reading have you encountered individuals working either for minimum wage or slightly above with a child or children. A single mother, perhaps? What was your observation of their life style?
3. Been to any mall in America lately, what is your observation of the fitness level and physique of those you often observe in malls. America, in my opinion, has a general problem with obesity.
Posted by: WVH on September 13, 2007 02:47 PM1. Have either of you read the book?
2. Let's get the discussion out of this particular book."
Ummm.... Why are you dragging me into your book debate?
And it's TY, not Ty.
Posted by: TY on September 13, 2007 04:08 PMI didn't have children, and don't know that there is an easy answer there. One result of our high taxes is that virtually all mothers have to work, which wasn't true years ago. So virtually all children get shafted in the name of helping the few.
Posted by: russell garrard on September 13, 2007 04:25 PMThanks for being openminded. I have posted here for awhile and most posters are familiar with my mantra that aside from a good education, the optimum situation for raising a child is a heterosexual two parent family. Many think I feel this way for religious reasons, partly. The reason that even most secular progressives can at least partly agree on the two parent aspect is division of labor. There are some awesome mighty single parents of both genders, but life is always a stretch. A sick child stretchs them to the breaking point in both emotions and if they do not have a sympathetic employer, it may affect their earning capacity. Even two parents secure in a relationship can be taxed by a sick child.
Now, the subject of this topic, obesity. There is a culture of poverty and chances are that if an individual is young, not educated, and with children, they will fit that demographic. The reason I believe that the optimum parenting situation is heterosexual is for healthy role models of both genders. Yes, I know that there are hetrosexual parents that are whack jobs and perverts, but that is not most. When you talk about discipline in work skills and discipline in other areas of life, that is an aspect of a culture of poverty. Poverty culture is not restricted to any ethnic group.
One of the things I cherish about my faith is not the list of "ought" or "thou shall nots," it is the doctrines of grace and mercy. I know that I use my allocation of mercy every day. It may be difficult to give mercy to adults, but hopefully, we as a culture have not lost the ability to give mercy to the children.
Again, thanks for the open mind.
Posted by: WVH on September 13, 2007 10:13 PMYou said:
"Ummm.... Why are you dragging me into your book debate?
And it's TY, not Ty."
Actually, you are correct, I should have addressed the following comments by you separately:
"98133 - spends the day in front of TV watching Povich, Montel and Divorce Court while eating Ding Dongs washed down with fruit punch.
98103 - spends the day working, learning, exercising, yard work."
In my opinion, this is a sterotype. The question to you is whether you have been to Northgate, Westfield SouthCenter or Alderwood. What are you likely to observe in terms of the weight of many patrons and do you have a sterotype which fits with their suburban lifestyle such as watchs too much Martha and cooks and eats every receipe, watches Dr. Phil and Northwest Afternoon while making and consuming Béarnaise.
Béarnaise:
A relative of hollandaise, béarnaise is a reduction of vinegar, tarragon and shallots that is finished with egg yolks and butter.
Just curious if this was the sterotype you were looking for.
Posted by: WVH on September 13, 2007 10:36 PMI can make similar comparisons between Hoquiam and Redmond but those locales were not included in the study. The study focused and reported on demographics in Seattle - something that exists whether it is admitted or not.
Since you did originally include me into what was either an exchange or challenge in part concerning "single mother" I'll address that. Although I owe you no comments or explanations about my life experience I can state that I have long been exposed to such persons both personally and professionally. There are very few people I know who haven't. I know of many women, including those and their children who endured the "Depression" and war rationing. Then, as now, basic wholesome food items were available. Starch, so to speak, was a daily staple for so many. It's interesting how that intake of starch by people almost forced to eat it did not lead to health problems we so often hear it causes certain selected groups today.
I can personally attest to many "single moms" I've witnessed in passing and at length who have worked or been on welfare and struggled yet maintained a quality that did not impair their children's health at the immediate time or in the long term. Likewise I can attest to "single moms" who have worked or been on welfare and likewise struggled who have damaged their children's health in both the short and long term. I've seen two parent households with dual incomes who've created health time bombs in how they've nurtured their children. "Stay-at-home housewives" who've done the same.
Give a young child a choice between Cocoa Puffs and Shredded Wheat and it's not hard to predict what the child will choose. Keep giving the child what they'll likely choose and those tastes will carry on for a long, long, time. Give the same child a choice between skim milk and Hi-C Punch and see what kind of habits develop. And those offerings and developmental issues are universal.
I could conclude that when a person quickly levies the word "stereotype" based upon extremely limited exchange and no personal knowledge of who they're responding to they're bigoted and/or prejudiced. But that would be bigoted and/or prejudiced on my part. It's better to keep the eggs in the Béarnaise than let it get on one's face by jumping to opinionated conclusions.
T.Y.
1. Please refresh my memory, did the study describe the subjects of the two zip codes like this:
"98133 - spends the day in front of TV watching Povich, Montel and Divorce Court while eating Ding Dongs washed down with fruit punch.
98103 - spends the day working, learning, exercising, yard work."
2. Now, from Answers.com, this is the definition of sterotype:
"ster·e·o·type (stĕr'ē-ə-tīp', stîr'-)
n.
A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.
Printing. A metal printing plate cast from a matrix molded from a raised printing surface, such as type."
See, the first definition.
3. Regarding your observations of single parents and other parents, they are in line with the literature. There are many determinants of how well an individual will do given adverse circumstance: personal resiliance, individual outlook and culture. Not all low-income individuals fall into the culture of poverty. Since I have looked I the underlying data and cross tabs, my theory is what the researchers are describing is the adverse effects of the culture of poverty with the focus on effects as related to diet and nutritian. Without looking at the methodology of the UW study or the underlying data it is not really easy to say what the study means other than it makes a catchy headline. So, your comments regarding your theory of why there are differences is based upon a sterotype as defined by the Answers definition.
So, as the kids say, bite me.
"Since I have looked I the underlying data and cross tabs, my theory is what the researchers are describing is the adverse effects of the culture of poverty with the focus on effects as related to diet and nutritian."
I have not looked at the methodology, questions, and cross tabs of the study and to really understand what the study means, one would have to do this. My theory is the study describes one of the adverse effects of the culture of poverty.
Posted by: WVH on September 14, 2007 11:42 PMHaaaaaaa!
Was that yet another boorish cut & paste by the alleged highly educated and alleged former high level of administrative responsibility WVH?
As the MasterCard ads proclaim: Priceless.
Adios troll. Your closing comment sums up what future attention you warrant.
Besides, I've got to get back to yard work then taking a walk around Green Lake.
Posted by: T.Y. on September 15, 2007 11:59 AMWatch who you are calling a troll. Exactly how long have you been posting here? Funny, I don't remember seeing your postings here before.
Now, if you have a cite that says my definition of sterotype is incorrect, then post it. If you have your own definition of sterotype, then what is it? My use of the term was correct.
I have one thing to say to you if you can't refute the definition of sterotype. You simply are an uneducated moron and rather than ignorance being priceless, since I don't know if you even have a mind, in your case, I can't even say a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Ta Ta.
Posted by: WVH on September 15, 2007 05:09 PM