Weight, health & body image

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Yea but that all takes time!

People literally don’t have the time for that.

So it still doesn’t explain the disparity between rich and poor unless you’re arguing that higher earners have more time (which I find hard to believe).

focuszing723

TheBigBean said:

Can the healthy eating brigade give some example low cost, tasty, healthy meals that everyone should be eating?

I love Caseroles, loads of veg with some meat . Gravey granules with a can of cider in there.

pangolin

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.
...

So the solution is 2 generations of unhealthy people.
I see other options. And this is about them, not me.

I'll expect your free cookery course this autumn.

FWIW, Jack Monroe has written extensively on eating well or as well as you can on a meagre budget, from direct experience. Worth reading.

No point. Jack beat me to it. 😉
FWIW type ingredients that you have into Google and a recipe will be provided.

Sure, but I want to judge people's idea of healthy food that is very low in calories and very satisfying.

Veggie paella?

That's a lot of time to cook something the kids won't eat and which contains as much sugar as it does protein.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/vegetable-paella

TheBigBean

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.
...

So the solution is 2 generations of unhealthy people.
I see other options. And this is about them, not me.

I'll expect your free cookery course this autumn.

FWIW, Jack Monroe has written extensively on eating well or as well as you can on a meagre budget, from direct experience. Worth reading.

No point. Jack beat me to it. 😉
FWIW type ingredients that you have into Google and a recipe will be provided.

Sure, but I want to judge people's idea of healthy food that is very low in calories and very satisfying.

Veggie paella?

Seafood paella is better, but much hard to cook, so you may as well eat out. It takes a while to cook, so it's worth having a couple of tapas to start and the odd drink. After a meal like that, a desert nicely finishes it off. Very satisfying. 2000+ calories.

pangolin

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Yea but that all takes time!

People literally don’t have the time for that.

So it still doesn’t explain the disparity between rich and poor unless you’re arguing that higher earners have more time (which I find hard to believe).

Seriously?

Pross

pangolin said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Good effort to admit you didn't manage it but assert that it is a viable strategy for most of the country.

Where did I assert that? It just feels like an excuse rather than a reason and I don’t see why it should be a bigger issue for the poorest over everyone else who are equally time poor.

Pross

Looking at this thread it appears we just have to accept obesity and it’s impact on the health of the country as you can’t criticise anyone for being overweight, education campaigns don’t work, it isn’t a will power issue / laziness, food can’t be too cheap or accessible and exercise doesn’t help with weight loss.

Anyone have any other solutions or do we just have to accept the costs to society and hope it helps address the problem of an ageing population.

pangolin

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Good effort to admit you didn't manage it but assert that it is a viable strategy for most of the country.

Where did I assert that? It just feels like an excuse rather than a reason and I don’t see why it should be a bigger issue for the poorest over everyone else who are equally time poor.

Perhaps implied is a better word.

I find the idea that you think the poorest have as much time to be messing around with meal planning and prep as people on this forum really surprising.

wavefront

It was implied that the poor don’t have the time (to cook)? Genuine question - is this just a generalisation or fact? Are they working harder (two/three jobs?), do they spend more time commuting on public transport? Ferrying kids to friends for childcare as they can’t afford nursery? I can see a section of society is running around with no time to cook, and I get that the first thing to drop off the priority list is cooking well. And if you’re up against it (with life) then somehow getting through every day is a win.

But I also think that if you’re struggling financially there is a strong possibility you will want to give yourself a break at every opportunity and look for anything that is easy (less hurdles to overcome) - Easy food from a packet.

pangolin

Pross said:

Looking at this thread it appears we just have to accept obesity and it’s impact on the health of the country as you can’t criticise anyone for being overweight, education campaigns don’t work, it isn’t a will power issue / laziness, food can’t be too cheap or accessible and exercise doesn’t help with weight loss.

Anyone have any other solutions or do we just have to accept the costs to society and hope it helps address the problem of an ageing population.

Get rid of ultra processed food.

pblakeney

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.
...

So the solution is 2 generations of unhealthy people.
I see other options. And this is about them, not me.

I'll expect your free cookery course this autumn.

FWIW, Jack Monroe has written extensively on eating well or as well as you can on a meagre budget, from direct experience. Worth reading.

No point. Jack beat me to it. 😉
FWIW type ingredients that you have into Google and a recipe will be provided.

Sure, but I want to judge people's idea of healthy food that is very low in calories and very satisfying.

Veggie paella?

That's a lot of time to cook something the kids won't eat and which contains as much sugar as it does protein.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/vegetable-paella

Not my recipe. Easy to cut down on the sugar, especially so by not using wine. Simply add fish or chicken for protein. Takes about 20 minutes for me, into kitchen to eating.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Good effort to admit you didn't manage it but assert that it is a viable strategy for most of the country.

Where did I assert that? It just feels like an excuse rather than a reason and I don’t see why it should be a bigger issue for the poorest over everyone else who are equally time poor.

Perhaps implied is a better word.

I find the idea that you think the poorest have as much time to be messing around with meal planning and prep as people on this forum really surprising.

A lot of Monroe's writing covers the extra time you need to spend planning and re-planning what you are going to buy to fit your budget. You have to shop at six different shops rather than one supermarket to get the cheapest beans and the cheapest bread and so on. She now has an encyclopedic knowledge of supermarket pricing structures. And you can only cook everything in a microwave or one saucepan. After you get back from your second or third job. The idea that paella is on that menu is grimly hilarious.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

...The idea that paella is on that menu is grimly hilarious.

Why? I am not talking about Michelin recipes, simply tasty and nutritious. It's simply rice, veggies and fish or chicken if desired/affordable. Takes 20 minutes from scratch.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.
...

So the solution is 2 generations of unhealthy people.
I see other options. And this is about them, not me.

I'll expect your free cookery course this autumn.

FWIW, Jack Monroe has written extensively on eating well or as well as you can on a meagre budget, from direct experience. Worth reading.

No point. Jack beat me to it. 😉
FWIW type ingredients that you have into Google and a recipe will be provided.

Sure, but I want to judge people's idea of healthy food that is very low in calories and very satisfying.

One I’ve done from BBC Good Food guide. There’s plenty similar that I’ve used when I have gained weight.

200g skinless chicken thigh £1.15
Quarter white cabbage roughly 20p
Ginger purée (in lieu of root ginger) 35p
Red chilli 15p
100g Bean sprouts 25p
50g spring onions 25p
150g Egg noodles 45p

A couple of spices and rice vinegar that will have an initial outlay but last forever. £2.80 for a portion with me increasing portion size to a more realistic level (200g of chicken is probably too high though). There are other noodle options that would be better but I’ve just used what was on Aldi’s website for simplicity

686 kcal 66g carbs 23.4g fat and 56.6g of protein according to My Fitness Pal.

Chuck in something like Weetabix or porridge for breakfast, a homemade sandwich with sensible filling for lunch and you would probably still be able to have some fruit, maybe a yoghurt or even a bag of crisps / bar of chocolate and be within your calorie and fat intakes for the day.

Pross

pangolin said:

Pross said:

Looking at this thread it appears we just have to accept obesity and it’s impact on the health of the country as you can’t criticise anyone for being overweight, education campaigns don’t work, it isn’t a will power issue / laziness, food can’t be too cheap or accessible and exercise doesn’t help with weight loss.

Anyone have any other solutions or do we just have to accept the costs to society and hope it helps address the problem of an ageing population.

Get rid of ultra processed food.

I’d be more than happy with that but I don’t see how that helps the low paid, no time person with kids that won’t eat healthy food in Rick’s example.

webboo

I wonder how many people on here actually have met/ know/ have had contact with poor people in this day and age.

pblakeney

webboo said:

I wonder how many people on here actually have met/ know/ have had contact with poor people in this day and age.

At one point for 3 months my weekly spend on food was $20 and that left me penniless.

Pross

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Good effort to admit you didn't manage it but assert that it is a viable strategy for most of the country.

Where did I assert that? It just feels like an excuse rather than a reason and I don’t see why it should be a bigger issue for the poorest over everyone else who are equally time poor.

Perhaps implied is a better word.

I find the idea that you think the poorest have as much time to be messing around with meal planning and prep as people on this forum really surprising.

Most people I’ve worked with are in the office 8-9 hours a day plus commuting time with partners doing similar. I would think they are also more likely to have kids doing after school activities due to having more disposable income.

Whilst I get that those working on low incomes and sometimes holding down more than one job (as I did myself when my eldest was a baby) have less time it doesn’t explain those who are out of work so are they less likely to be obese?

Pross

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Good effort to admit you didn't manage it but assert that it is a viable strategy for most of the country.

Where did I assert that? It just feels like an excuse rather than a reason and I don’t see why it should be a bigger issue for the poorest over everyone else who are equally time poor.

Perhaps implied is a better word.

I find the idea that you think the poorest have as much time to be messing around with meal planning and prep as people on this forum really surprising.

A lot of Monroe's writing covers the extra time you need to spend planning and re-planning what you are going to buy to fit your budget. You have to shop at six different shops rather than one supermarket to get the cheapest beans and the cheapest bread and so on. She now has an encyclopedic knowledge of supermarket pricing structures. And you can only cook everything in a microwave or one saucepan. After you get back from your second or third job. The idea that paella is on that menu is grimly hilarious.

That’s a pet hate of mine with the programmes they have on TV doing that sort of thing (and why I used a single store’s ingredients above).

webboo

pblakeney said:

webboo said:

I wonder how many people on here actually have met/ know/ have had contact with poor people in this day and age.

At one point for 3 months my weekly spend on food was $20 and that left me penniless.

$20 ? Were you dirt bagging somewhere while you pursued your hobby?

rjsterry

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.
...

So the solution is 2 generations of unhealthy people.
I see other options. And this is about them, not me.

I'll expect your free cookery course this autumn.

FWIW, Jack Monroe has written extensively on eating well or as well as you can on a meagre budget, from direct experience. Worth reading.

No point. Jack beat me to it. 😉
FWIW type ingredients that you have into Google and a recipe will be provided.

Sure, but I want to judge people's idea of healthy food that is very low in calories and very satisfying.

One I’ve done from BBC Good Food guide. There’s plenty similar that I’ve used when I have gained weight.

200g skinless chicken thigh £1.15
Quarter white cabbage roughly 20p
Ginger purée (in lieu of root ginger) 35p
Red chilli 15p
100g Bean sprouts 25p
50g spring onions 25p
150g Egg noodles 45p

A couple of spices and rice vinegar that will have an initial outlay but last forever. £2.80 for a portion with me increasing portion size to a more realistic level (200g of chicken is probably too high though). There are other noodle options that would be better but I’ve just used what was on Aldi’s website for simplicity

686 kcal 66g carbs 23.4g fat and 56.6g of protein according to My Fitness Pal.

Chuck in something like Weetabix or porridge for breakfast, a homemade sandwich with sensible filling for lunch and you would probably still be able to have some fruit, maybe a yoghurt or even a bag of crisps / bar of chocolate and be within your calorie and fat intakes for the day.

This is pretty good, but multiply that by 4 and then 7 and you are already at £78.40 for the week and you still need to find breakfast and lunch.

rjsterry

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Good effort to admit you didn't manage it but assert that it is a viable strategy for most of the country.

Where did I assert that? It just feels like an excuse rather than a reason and I don’t see why it should be a bigger issue for the poorest over everyone else who are equally time poor.

Perhaps implied is a better word.

I find the idea that you think the poorest have as much time to be messing around with meal planning and prep as people on this forum really surprising.

Most people I’ve worked with are in the office 8-9 hours a day plus commuting time with partners doing similar. I would think they are also more likely to have kids doing after school activities due to having more disposable income.

Whilst I get that those working on low incomes and sometimes holding down more than one job (as I did myself when my eldest was a baby) have less time it doesn’t explain those who are out of work so are they less likely to be obese?

It's not just one cause. It's multiple social, and psychological causes causes that share the same common set of symptoms.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.
...

So the solution is 2 generations of unhealthy people.
I see other options. And this is about them, not me.

I'll expect your free cookery course this autumn.

FWIW, Jack Monroe has written extensively on eating well or as well as you can on a meagre budget, from direct experience. Worth reading.

No point. Jack beat me to it. 😉
FWIW type ingredients that you have into Google and a recipe will be provided.

Sure, but I want to judge people's idea of healthy food that is very low in calories and very satisfying.

One I’ve done from BBC Good Food guide. There’s plenty similar that I’ve used when I have gained weight.

200g skinless chicken thigh £1.15
Quarter white cabbage roughly 20p
Ginger purée (in lieu of root ginger) 35p
Red chilli 15p
100g Bean sprouts 25p
50g spring onions 25p
150g Egg noodles 45p

A couple of spices and rice vinegar that will have an initial outlay but last forever. £2.80 for a portion with me increasing portion size to a more realistic level (200g of chicken is probably too high though). There are other noodle options that would be better but I’ve just used what was on Aldi’s website for simplicity

686 kcal 66g carbs 23.4g fat and 56.6g of protein according to My Fitness Pal.

Chuck in something like Weetabix or porridge for breakfast, a homemade sandwich with sensible filling for lunch and you would probably still be able to have some fruit, maybe a yoghurt or even a bag of crisps / bar of chocolate and be within your calorie and fat intakes for the day.

This is pretty good, but multiply that by 4 and then 7 and you are already at £78.40 for the week and you still need to find breakfast and lunch.

Sure, it was more in response to TBB’s question though so wasn’t really intended purely as a budget meal. If I was doing as healthy as possible on as low a budget as possible it would probably comprise mainly frozen mixed veg, frozen white fish fillets or chicken breast with rice or potatoes as filler. Not very inspiring but cheap, nutritious, quick & easy to prepare.

Doing stuff in bulk is also helpful both in terms of time and cost but does require freezer space that many won’t have.

For the record I don’t think it’s easy for many working parents in particular no matter what their income. I’m certainly eating better now that my youngest is in Uni, eldest has moved out and I’m working from home. It was always a struggle when I was leaving at 7.30am, getting home at 7.30pm and the wife was doing all the running around that modern parenting requires when she got home from work. I really enjoy cooking the evening meal now, nothing complicated but on week days all from scratch whereas before it would be sauces from jars etc. and the occasional ready meal

I’m very aware that I am now a lot more time rich as well as financially comfortable (albeit not as much as when I was time poor) and that I’m in a privileged position though.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
(for those who think it's all takeaways, the summary also points out that "for one in five people in England, who are living in poverty, eating healthy food is secondary to eating at all.")

How many take the easy food preparation route above healthy? Yes, I am accusing some of being lazy. Veg can be had cheap. It just needs to be prepped and cooked.

So an example I was given was as follows.

You're a single mother, with a picky 4 year old.

You don't have enough money for the child to 'experiment' and not eat dinner - you're struggling to eat as it is, so you give the picky kid the stuff you know they're gonna eat - nuggets, chips pizza etc.

You don't have the time nor money to drum up a second meal so it's more efficient to just eat what they eat.

The snootiness of people who think it's just a matter of willpower is remarkable. Honestly, you are not superior just because you're not fat.

I get that argument but surely the reason the kids 'like' pizza and chips is because they've been fed it previously (or it is what all their friends eat). If kids are introduced to healthier foods from day one they won't know any different. Isn't it more likely that the parents grew up on the unhealthy diet and introduced it to the kids to start with?

FWIW I'm as guilty as anyone over the years in doing the 'give the kids what they want' thing so they'll eat but I reckon if you don't give them an alternative they'll eventually start to eat what's in front of them. I was a fussy eater as a kid and that's the approach that was taken on me along with sitting at the table until I'd finished. My wife's aunt was an expert at getting good stuff into kids without them realising what they were eating by making fun shapes etc.

Good effort to admit you didn't manage it but assert that it is a viable strategy for most of the country.

Where did I assert that? It just feels like an excuse rather than a reason and I don’t see why it should be a bigger issue for the poorest over everyone else who are equally time poor.

Perhaps implied is a better word.

I find the idea that you think the poorest have as much time to be messing around with meal planning and prep as people on this forum really surprising.

Most people I’ve worked with are in the office 8-9 hours a day plus commuting time with partners doing similar. I would think they are also more likely to have kids doing after school activities due to having more disposable income.

Whilst I get that those working on low incomes and sometimes holding down more than one job (as I did myself when my eldest was a baby) have less time it doesn’t explain those who are out of work so are they less likely to be obese?

It's not just one cause. It's multiple social, and psychological causes causes that share the same common set of symptoms.

Of course, all of the above was a response to it being a time issue along with not having money to waste on food a child won’t eat.

I fear it will only get worse as each generation grows up without the skills / know how to prepare a meal from scratch and becomes ever more reliant on ultra processed foods.

pblakeney

webboo said:

pblakeney said:

webboo said:

I wonder how many people on here actually have met/ know/ have had contact with poor people in this day and age.

At one point for 3 months my weekly spend on food was $20 and that left me penniless.

$20 ? Were you dirt bagging somewhere while you pursued your hobby?

Unemployed after rent. And had been for the previous 6 months. Those 3 were after my savings had been eaten up. It was 30 years ago though, but $CDN to offset inflation.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Ja the arrogance is remarkable.

And that’s coming from me!

Where's the arrogance? All I've said is that I've successfully managed my weight (within a fairly narrow range - 75kg-80kg) all my adult life and by definition I'm better at weight management than people who are overweight. Simply stating facts isn't arrogance. It might be tactless though.

Because so many external factor seem to correlate to rates of obesity...

That's as maybe, but for a given overweight individual, if you eat less of the same then your rate of weight gain will decrease. And all of us, bar young children, have it within our control to eat less.

rick_chasey

I really disagree with the oversimplification of the problem.

It's a bit like only looking at how people press the accelerator to examine why people speed. "it's because they're pressing the go pedal too hard" and therefore people who don't are the one's who don't speed, so just "don't press the go pedal too hard".

Clearly there is more to it than that.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

I really disagree with the oversimplification of the problem.

It's a bit like only looking at how people press the accelerator to examine why people speed. "it's because they're pressing the go pedal too hard" and therefore people who don't are the one's who don't speed, so just "don't press the go pedal too hard".

Clearly there is more to it than that.

I'm not really addressing the psychological aspects. Just the physical aspects. Whilst over-eating and obesity etc. is doubtless a complex social problem, the current trend of excusing obesity as it is more prevalent amongst the poor and poor people can only afford to eat cr*p food because of the evil Tories doesn't help, evil though the Tories may be. (If malnutrition was the main issue then this would be a valid argument.)

Going back to your example with the chips and nuggets, I get why that might be the only feasible option for the parent to eat (though as others have observed, there may be better alternatives available for relatively little additional effort) but if parent is gaining weight whilst eating 8 nuggets and 200g (circa 1/5 of a full 1kg bag) of chips each night, it's really not that hard to redesign the cooking process to produce a serving of 7 nuggets and 160g chips (circa 1/6 of a full bag).

rick_chasey

Sure but the psychological aspect is the important bit.

Like I said, whether they're pressing the go pedal harder than they should is pretty dull. The question is why are they pressing it harder.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

I really disagree with the oversimplification of the problem.

It's a bit like only looking at how people press the accelerator to examine why people speed. "it's because they're pressing the go pedal too hard" and therefore people who don't are the one's who don't speed, so just "don't press the go pedal too hard".

Clearly there is more to it than that.

I'm not really addressing the psychological aspects. Just the physical aspects. Whilst over-eating and obesity etc. is doubtless a complex social problem, the current trend of excusing obesity as it is more prevalent amongst the poor and poor people can only afford to eat cr*p food because of the evil Tories doesn't help, evil though the Tories may be. (If malnutrition was the main issue then this would be a valid argument.)

Going back to your example with the chips and nuggets, I get why that might be the only feasible option for the parent to eat (though as others have observed, there may be better alternatives available for relatively little additional effort) but if parent is gaining weight whilst eating 8 nuggets and 200g (circa 1/5 of a full 1kg bag) of chips each night, it's really not that hard to redesign the cooking process to produce a serving of 7 nuggets and 160g chips (circa 1/6 of a full bag).

I don't know where you get the idea of "excusing" from. It's not like people aren't bombarded with advertising telling them that they have to be thin to be successful in life. A certain amount of push back against that is a good thing.

It's clearly a public health issue and should be addressed as such rather than 'everyone just needs to eat better' statements - I mean obviously: how we achieve that at a population level is the only interesting question.