Posts with Comments by Caviar Queen
The grain dole of America
Generic commenter,
The vast majority of us are preposterously overfed, and that's even more true for poor people, so I agree that food stamps are counterproductive.
The purpose of food stamps is to alleviate hunger/food insecurity, for that purpose they?re
not counterproductive.
The vast majority of us are preposterously overfed, and that's even more true for poor people, so I agree that food stamps are counterproductive.
The purpose of food stamps is to alleviate hunger/food insecurity, for that purpose they?re
not counterproductive.
To be hungry sometimes is uncomfortable, I know this personally, I am hungry sometimes. Though for me it has to do with the fact that I don?t think that the immediate response to hunger always has to be food to satiate the pangs (I don?t like to eat past a certain hour).
What a way to trivialize other people?s hunger by insinuating that they can?t distinguish between physical hunger and psychological hunger. It?s even more important to distinguish between voluntary hunger and involuntary hunger. Those who don?t have enough to eat may not have the privilege of experiencing psychological hunger.
What a way to trivialize other people?s hunger by insinuating that they can?t distinguish between physical hunger and psychological hunger. It?s even more important to distinguish between voluntary hunger and involuntary hunger. Those who don?t have enough to eat may not have the privilege of experiencing psychological hunger.
Reality check on American “hunger”
I too have marveled at the different standards for the developed world versus the developing world for what constitutes hunger (as well as for other measures of disadvantage, e.g., poverty, literacy, etc). It seems that Americans expect better of their country. I have also marveled at the vitriol expressed here and elsewhere on this issue. I guess I expected better of this website.
You are falling prey to a variant of the ecological fallacy. You are too quick to dismiss evidence of food insecurity by claiming that those who are ?supposedly? hungry are overweight, therefore they must not be hungry. Why do you assume that the ?they? who are hungry are the same ?they? who are overweight? Lets say, for the sake of argument, that a higher proportion of the poor overeat (compared to the non-poor); does that somehow cancel out the fact that a higher proportion of the poor are also undernourished?
Perhaps the poor are more likely to be overweight even when you adjust for caloric intake.
Does the coexistence of both leblouh and hunger in countries like Mauritania likewise puzzle you?
There is evidence that malnutrition can cause changes in one?s metabolism, perhaps even intergenerationally through epigenetic mechanisms. (The thrifty phenotype hypothesis.) It?s preposterous to use the effects of past malnutrition to dismiss the possibility of current malnutrition, albeit one that is probably less severe.
The causal relationship between poverty and obesity is reciprocal. The obese are more likely to end up in poverty, even if they weren?t poor when they became obese. Yet their current poverty/obesity confluence is used dismiss the possibility of other poor people being hungry.
Some are confusing matters further by conflating ethnic minorities with the poor, and using the former as a proxy for the latter. The incidence of vitamin D deficiency, which is a risk factor for obesity, is higher in dark-skinned people.
World Bank data estimates that 1.3% of U.S. children under 5 are ?underweight? - less than the 2.3% that would be expected in a fully normal distribution.
If you are focusing on the poor, then at least for the sake of consistency, you should be looking at what percent of poor Americans are underweight, which may well be higher than what it is among the general U.S. population, especially given the fact that the incidence of low birthweight is higher among the poor. I suspect that BMI variance is larger in America than it is in most other countries, and that it?s even larger for low-SES Americans.
In any case, the fact that less than 2.3% of the population is underweight doesn?t mean that the tail isn?t fat, let alone attenuated, especially when you consider that the average BMI in America is higher. BMI isn?t normally distributed anyway, it?s positively skewed.
You are falling prey to a variant of the ecological fallacy. You are too quick to dismiss evidence of food insecurity by claiming that those who are ?supposedly? hungry are overweight, therefore they must not be hungry. Why do you assume that the ?they? who are hungry are the same ?they? who are overweight? Lets say, for the sake of argument, that a higher proportion of the poor overeat (compared to the non-poor); does that somehow cancel out the fact that a higher proportion of the poor are also undernourished?
Perhaps the poor are more likely to be overweight even when you adjust for caloric intake.
Does the coexistence of both leblouh and hunger in countries like Mauritania likewise puzzle you?
There is evidence that malnutrition can cause changes in one?s metabolism, perhaps even intergenerationally through epigenetic mechanisms. (The thrifty phenotype hypothesis.) It?s preposterous to use the effects of past malnutrition to dismiss the possibility of current malnutrition, albeit one that is probably less severe.
The causal relationship between poverty and obesity is reciprocal. The obese are more likely to end up in poverty, even if they weren?t poor when they became obese. Yet their current poverty/obesity confluence is used dismiss the possibility of other poor people being hungry.
Some are confusing matters further by conflating ethnic minorities with the poor, and using the former as a proxy for the latter. The incidence of vitamin D deficiency, which is a risk factor for obesity, is higher in dark-skinned people.
World Bank data estimates that 1.3% of U.S. children under 5 are ?underweight? - less than the 2.3% that would be expected in a fully normal distribution.
If you are focusing on the poor, then at least for the sake of consistency, you should be looking at what percent of poor Americans are underweight, which may well be higher than what it is among the general U.S. population, especially given the fact that the incidence of low birthweight is higher among the poor. I suspect that BMI variance is larger in America than it is in most other countries, and that it?s even larger for low-SES Americans.
In any case, the fact that less than 2.3% of the population is underweight doesn?t mean that the tail isn?t fat, let alone attenuated, especially when you consider that the average BMI in America is higher. BMI isn?t normally distributed anyway, it?s positively skewed.
Recent Comments