Poor people are fat!
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
info

Harrison, AR

#1 May 1, 2010
229 man

London, KY

#2 May 1, 2010
IM FAT AND IM POOR
joe

Corbin, KY

#3 May 1, 2010
that is stupid who ever made this up

“Meat”

Since: Jan 10

Barbourville

#4 May 1, 2010
Well, if you think about it.. healthy food does cost more.

You think a 5 dollar pizza is healthier for you than a salad loaded with veggies?

“Meat”

Since: Jan 10

Barbourville

#5 May 1, 2010
Oh, and good MEAT costs a lot.

^_^
whocares

Leechburg, PA

#6 May 1, 2010
what does rich or poor got to do with it.I"ve seen weathly people who are fat.If you was that poor how could you afford the fatty foods to get fat on.

“Meat”

Since: Jan 10

Barbourville

#7 May 1, 2010
Dude, junk food is cheaper.

“Meat”

Since: Jan 10

Barbourville

#8 May 1, 2010
For example:

A "combo" at a fast food chain costs around 6 or 7 bucks..

It would cost around 30 bucks to make burgers with sides at home, if you bought all the ingredients: Fresh Beef (around 1.78 a pound), Fresh Tomatoes (1.50 each), Fresh Lettuce (99 cents a head), Fresh Buns (8 for a dollar), Fresh Pickles (3.99 for a good jar), Mustard (1.25 a bottle), Mayo (2.00 a bottle, Ketchup (2.99 a bottle), American Cheese (2.99 a pack), Fries (3.99 a bag for crinkle cut), 2.99 for the oil... it adds up. 1.25 a 2 liter.

Just think.. this isn't even the "healthy" choice for making burgers.
whocares

Leechburg, PA

#9 May 1, 2010
_meat_ wrote:
For example:
A "combo" at a fast food chain costs around 6 or 7 bucks..
It would cost around 30 bucks to make burgers with sides at home, if you bought all the ingredients: Fresh Beef (around 1.78 a pound), Fresh Tomatoes (1.50 each), Fresh Lettuce (99 cents a head), Fresh Buns (8 for a dollar), Fresh Pickles (3.99 for a good jar), Mustard (1.25 a bottle), Mayo (2.00 a bottle, Ketchup (2.99 a bottle), American Cheese (2.99 a pack), Fries (3.99 a bag for crinkle cut), 2.99 for the oil... it adds up. 1.25 a 2 liter.
Just think.. this isn't even the "healthy" choice for making burgers.
Yes but most people already have all the ingredients bought up at home and you have leftovers.so its still cheaper at home and another plus you know who handles your food.I like knowing my hands are clean before i eat my food.and besides that anything i handled belonged to me
hinkle_94

Somerset, KY

#10 May 1, 2010
_meat_ wrote:
For example:
A "combo" at a fast food chain costs around 6 or 7 bucks..
It would cost around 30 bucks to make burgers with sides at home, if you bought all the ingredients: Fresh Beef (around 1.78 a pound), Fresh Tomatoes (1.50 each), Fresh Lettuce (99 cents a head), Fresh Buns (8 for a dollar), Fresh Pickles (3.99 for a good jar), Mustard (1.25 a bottle), Mayo (2.00 a bottle, Ketchup (2.99 a bottle), American Cheese (2.99 a pack), Fries (3.99 a bag for crinkle cut), 2.99 for the oil... it adds up. 1.25 a 2 liter.
Just think.. this isn't even the "healthy" choice for making burgers.
And your POINT is!!! WTF???

“Meat”

Since: Jan 10

Barbourville

#11 May 1, 2010
hinkle, my point is cheap food is less healthy.
info

United States

#12 May 1, 2010
whocares wrote:
what does rich or poor got to do with it.I"ve seen weathly people who are fat.If you was that poor how could you afford the fatty foods to get fat on.
Click on the link and read the article. Has anyone read the article? It is a subscriber website, so you may not get it for free. Try and find out and let us know.
info

United States

#13 May 1, 2010
_meat_ wrote:
Well, if you think about it.. healthy food does cost more.
You think a 5 dollar pizza is healthier for you than a salad loaded with veggies?
The article does not mention cost, it talks more about lifestyle.

“Meat”

Since: Jan 10

Barbourville

#14 May 1, 2010
Uh, did I miss something.. what article?
info

United States

#15 May 1, 2010
The very first post. The blue line. Click it and it will go to the article.

“Meat”

Since: Jan 10

Barbourville

#16 May 1, 2010
Oh, I see it now. I also disagree with it. It seems more government control would be bad.. considering this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvaria...
info

Harrison, AR

#17 May 1, 2010
They're insinuating the same thing. It closes out implying that government won't be able to control it without damaging, draconian measures.
info

London, KY

#18 May 1, 2010
Check this out:

In the homes of the poor, the unemployed and the single parents that I used to visit as a doctor, I would find no evidence of cooking ever having been done there. Fatty take-away meals and ready-prepared foods heated in the microwave were the diet, together with almost constant snacks. There was not even a table to eat at: an absence that was not the consequence of raw poverty, since the flat-screen television would have been large enough, turned horizontal, to serve as a dining table.

In these circumstances, children graze or forage; but unlike previous hunter gatherers, they do not come up against a scarcity of food, but rather a surfeit of it. Nothing is easier for them than to overindulge, and the appetite grows with the feeding. Their tastes never develop beyond the most instantly gratifying types of food, sugary and fatty, and they eat like children for the rest of their lives; they never learn the discipline of subordinating their appetite to the exigencies of family life and social convention. They are like Pooh Bear, for whom it is always time for a little something. It is hardly surprising if, like Pooh Bear's, their waistlines expand until they can't fit into a normal seat.

Family and social meals are among the most powerful teachers of self-control in the human repertoire. They teach that the appetite of the moment is not, or rather ought not to be, the sole determinant of one's behavior. The pattern of grazing or foraging independently of everyone else teaches precisely the opposite lesson. It is hardly surprising that those who do not experience family or social meals early in life exhibit the lack of self-control that underlies so much modern social pathology in the midst of plenty.

View Full Image

WSJ illustration, Getty Images (photo)
These social, or antisocial, developments have taken place precisely at a time when electronic means of entertainment have become available to all. For the uneducated, the world is an intolerably dull and slow-moving place by comparison with the excitement available at the press of a button or the flick of a switch. Why, then, move off your couch and risk the ennui of the real world? You can satisfy your appetite and occupy the vacuum of your mind at the same time, at most wriggling like a maggot in sawdust. The availability of constant entertainment is one of the causes of obesity.
Bubble Popper

United States

#19 May 2, 2010
Hate to burst your bubble, but I know of A LOT of ppl that are fat and far from being poor. So your theory isn't so..
info

United States

#20 May 2, 2010
True. Same here. But I know a lot of "poor" people who are fat. The United States is the only place in history with fat poor people. Look around and think about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 52 min ChromiuMan 165,710
Where were you back in the 70's? 2 hr Humpy 9
Dozier 2 hr who 3
Gays and trans sinners 2 hr Humpy 9
Young girls 2 hr Teacher 4
Looking for Kenny Saunders (Aug '16) 2 hr facts 13
Satan is the true God. 3 hr Christen 5
Police and Ambulance 21 hr Molly 108

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages