It seems like there could have been much more interesting information extracted from this dataset than they actually got. Instead we're getting gems like the fact that people who make more money wind up spending more money on food, and "the people who are spending the most money on food overall devote more money to dining out". Families with children spend more money on food than single people.
The analysis goes on to ask interesting questions but not answer them. "how did people in Austin spend $12,447 on food and drink last year, while people in Miami spent half as much? What are they buying in Austin? And what aren't they eating in Miami?" Perhaps because Miami has a lot of old people and old people spend a lot less on food than young people? The data exists to figure out whether this would be sufficient to account for it, but they don't bother doing the analysis.
Oh, and the one graph I really wanted to see was "proportion of food budget spent on going out" vs "income" which I suspect might show some interesting behaviour. But the graph wasn't there.
"Brian Wansink, the director of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University, estimates we make 227 decisions about what to eat every day..."
That doesn't pass the smell test. The only way I can get that number is to devalue "decision" to the point of uselessness; if I decide to each hamburgers for dinner, well, I decided not to eat lasagna and I decided not to eat spaghetti and I decided not to eat at McDonald's and I decided not to eat at Wendy's. Maybe that's not exactly what they did, but I couldn't find an actual description of the methodology, and j'accuse.
And rounding out the top ten we have a bunch of poorish Southern cities plus San Diego. I didn't bother to look them all up but San Diego has a surprising-to-me-ly small food spending.
OK, so I suppose there's a tendency towards the fattest cities being among the lowest-spending, with Birmingham being a slight outlier. I suspect what we're seeing is just the well-known "poor people are fatter" phenomenon, but complicated by a bunch of factors such as race, age distribution (few old people are fat) and local cuisine (southern and Mexican cuisine are particularly fattening).
I'll repeat what I always say though: poor people aren't fat because they're poor, they're fat for the same reason they're poor -- they're not too bright, have poor impulse control, don't plan ahead, and so forth.
>I'll repeat what I always say though: poor people aren't fat because they're poor, they're fat for the same reason they're poor -- they're not too bright, have poor impulse control, don't plan ahead, and so forth.
Evidence? Not saying it's necessarily false, but I can't help but notice that healthy food is much, much more expensive than food that's bad for you. Calorie-wise, eating food packed with high fructose corn syrup is probably one of the cheapest ways to eat. You end up spending way more (I know because I do) buying vegetables, lean meats, dairy, etc.
>> I'll repeat what I always say though: poor people aren't fat because they're poor, they're fat for the same reason they're poor -- they're not too bright, have poor impulse control, don't plan ahead, and so forth.
I would seriously not go that far to say poor people are not too bright or have poor impulse control. That's judgmental without any data to back it up. Poor people are likely poor because they aren't well educated, or have professional white collar jobs like you and I. Lack of education and access results in lack of awareness. You and I sit in our comfy sofas watching Jamie Oliver give a talk at TED and hence we hail our organic vegetables and our foo-foo healthy lifestyles. You cannot compare this vantage point with the predicament of someone who is struggling to make ends meet. Or someone who grew up in a poor neighborhood.
Lack of money has absolutely nothing to do with "brightness" or impulse control. I grew up in India and know all too well that poor people can be very sharp.
I have seen well-to-do fat people who lack even basic self-control. In fact, much of America is not poor and the obesity epidemic here has nothing to do with income levels. It is the result of a simple fact that fattening, processed stuff is widely available at every corner for dirt cheap prices. And that stuff that tastes good. When a healthy meal costs $12, it is but natural that someone who earns minimum wage goes for the $3 burger at McD.
To disprove your argument, I put forward one simple fact. Majority of the population in developing countries is not fat and they certainly aren't dancing around in money.
I would be interested in running an experiment. What if all organic, fresh, natural, unprocessed food was made dirt cheap and anything that isn't was taxed like hell? So a lb of fresh vegetables and fruits costs $0.50. Unprocessed food is subsidized at 50%. That order of fries, soda, and cheezburger? $15.
Lack of education and access results in lack of awareness. You and I sit in our comfy sofas watching Jamie Oliver give a talk at TED and hence we hail our organic vegetables and our foo-foo healthy lifestyles. You cannot compare this vantage point with the predicament of someone who is struggling to make ends meet.
You don't need to eat like Jamie Oliver to not be obese. How much "education" does it take to realize that cookies and sugary sodas and sitting on the couch all day will make you fat?
It is the result of a simple fact that fattening, processed stuff is widely available at every corner for dirt cheap prices here. Stuff that tastes good.
Absolutely. And I think there's something to Scott Adams's willpower theory. If you have a great job and a nice house and a gorgeous wife and/or mistress, it's not a huge sacrifice to pass on the Twinkie and go jogging. But if you're just barely making ends meet and have no apparent prospects for improvement, it's really hard to turn down short-term gratification.
Making healthy food taste better would do far more to combat obesity than plastering nutritional labels and PSAs everywhere.
> I'll repeat what I always say though: poor people aren't fat because they're poor, they're fat for the same reason they're poor -- they're not too bright, have poor impulse control, don't plan ahead, and so forth.
And if a wealthy person is fat is it because they're big-boned?
My theory is, farther up the social ladder, people become more "lifestyle conscious" -- it's hard to give a shit about that stuff when you're poor. The decision to lead a healthier lifestyle is often justified by health benefits, but the internal calculus is based on a desire to fit in and conform to social norms.
This matches my own life experience: When I was poor, I didn't give a damn about what I ate or whether I exercised. I got fat. As soon as I started making real money, I started paying more attention to these things, because everyone around me felt they were important and this rubbed off on me, and now I'm back to a healthy weight and not eating junk from a bodega.
And if a wealthy person is fat is it because they're big-boned?
Naah, if a wealthy person is fat it's just because they have poor impulse control, but are fortunately sufficiently good at other things to overcome this problem.
The analysis goes on to ask interesting questions but not answer them. "how did people in Austin spend $12,447 on food and drink last year, while people in Miami spent half as much? What are they buying in Austin? And what aren't they eating in Miami?" Perhaps because Miami has a lot of old people and old people spend a lot less on food than young people? The data exists to figure out whether this would be sufficient to account for it, but they don't bother doing the analysis.
Oh, and the one graph I really wanted to see was "proportion of food budget spent on going out" vs "income" which I suspect might show some interesting behaviour. But the graph wasn't there.