[ItsMe000001]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/

The link between poverty and obesity in the modern world is well established. That means you can hardly point to a lack of energy consumption. I added a video to my comment, from a bio.chem course, that shows a common pathway how high energy state leads to obesity.

Note that I can't and don't want to (and don't need to) show very much here, only provide an argument against what I think is a strange argument from @Retric about "not enough energy in veggies". Energy is not the problem (the psychological feeling of "I have no energy", which may be more prevalent in poor people (I don't know), is not the same as a low energy level).

I doubt the considerations you mention actually happen, or when then it's not widespread. I think it's automatic behaviors rather than conscious choices, and I doubt most people think about their foods energy content (given that a large majority of people, including and for some groups even especially among the poor, consume too much of it). As I see it, the energy claim doesn't fit the available data - which shows an excess, not a lack. That's why I think explanations as well as actions have to aim somewhere else - or would you say we should provide even more energy in food (especially aimed at poor people or not does not matter, since obesity affects all groups to varying degrees).

Another interesting read might be (okay, although it does not say anything actually new): https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/1/6/4690070

[Retric]

The point about low calories is veggies are inherently an extra and not a staple. You need to add veggies to your diet and can't simply replace a plate of rice and beans with them.

The preference for low cost per calorie foods makes it easy to over eat when your body is missing some nutrient. Which can create offial feedback loops. But, the simple "how do I eat for 20$ this week" is IMO a factor at the individual and cultural level that should not be ignored.

[ItsMe000001]

The point about calories was invalid, as I clearly pointed out. There is a problem of too much, there is no problem of not enough. And energy-rich carbs are cheap. So nothing remains of that argument, it was just silly!

> The preference for low cost per calorie foods makes it easy to over eat when your body is missing some nutrient.

Exactly.

If you agree with me, what's your point? I argued against your very specific - and very silly - argument in your first reply, which makes no sense whatsoever and is completely made up and artificial. See my response!

Please stop making stuff up and reply to what I actually wrote or not at all. I hate it when people make stuff up and pretend to "counter" my comment when they completely ignore it and make stuff up.

[Retric]

I think you are failing to grasp the price differences and my argument.

You can become obese eating rice and beans for less than the 1.50$ per day. Morbid obesity on cheap calorie dense food is cheaper than a healthy diet. This trend continues if you look at fast food or any quick options.

So, no being fat is not cost prohibitive, but eating veggies is. Further, as I said if you eat empty calories like Purple Drank you still need nutrition and again eating calorie dense foods and extra calories costs less than veggies.

This has social consequences as fewer people eat healthy foods they become less accessible, and culture adapted to eating cheap means all food options are high calorie.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Veggies are also perishable. - Rice and Beans don't go bad. You need to have a plan on what to do with said veggies when you get them and need to make sure you use them before they go bad. Rice and beans are as simple as two pots (one if you're lazy), a little bit of water, and 20 minutes of barely looking at the food.

[your-nanny]

A lot of beans take longer than 20 mins.

And beans are super nutritious.

[ItsMe000001]

> I think you are failing to grasp the price differences and my argument.

Thank you very much!

I think I DO understand your argument, but I have the suspicion that you fail at understanding my very first reply already, which sums it up quite nicely. Your "argument" is none because it addresses an issue that does not exist. You countered something that you yourself invented, an issue that does not exist.

Please, just read my original reply. This is just plain silly: As I already said, if you don't care one bit what I wrote, why did you (and still do) bother to reply? Again and again?

[Retric]

Yea, I read what you said as they don't need to eat that many calories, but over time their body says they do.

Do you know any poor people? People that grew up in poor families? Just like everyone else when overweight their body wants to maintain that weight. That's going to take food, and in some cases a lot of it which is a real cost.

Eating cheap calorie dense food can cover based nutrition requirements. It's not optimal for health, but it's cheap, really really cheap.

Poor people also indulge in nutrition free food like soda when they can afford it, but then they still need to cover nutrition and the cheapest way to do that is high caloric foods. After a while they need to eat just as much to maintain that weight. But, at no point in that viscous cycle are veggies more than a garnish.

Would a lifetime of 3 servings of veggies a day help avoid weight gain while allowing for some indulgences? Of course, but it would also cost significantly more especially when raising a family which starts up the cycle again.

[ItsMe000001]

Di you know that you are famous?

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07

This fixation on the idea "people eat only vegetables!" is a fabrication of YOUR mind. You keep bringing it up. Are you sick? Do you need professional help? I'm a little concerned for you my little stupid friend. You can't tell what's only in your head from what what's outside? How about you stick to what I wrote and stop posting utter nonsense and made-up bullshit?