Hacker News Reader

Comment by toolz | Hacker News Reader

did you read the definition of the very lowest tier of "very low food security" metric?

It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition.

The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules.

We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.

View on HN

> It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships".

The metrics people used 100 years ago are of no concern to me and indeed the values those people held are more often than not abhorrent.

> Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers.

When faced with data, you persist in this lie.

> Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed

False, food deserts coupled with the fact that the more nutritious foods are much more expensive make it extremely difficult to do so.

> I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy.

That's easy af to do when it's voluntary.

> We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.

This tells me that you've never been poor. One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods.

> One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods.

Obesity is caused exclusively by calorie surplus. You can literally eat pure sugar, twinkies, and sugary beverages exclusively at base metabolism maintenance calories and never become obese.

As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and lived far below the poverty line for like 8 years of my adult life. Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can eat far healthier than the average american on the lowest budgets in the US. At literally half the poverty line if you spend 30% of your budget on food that's $5 a day on food - now you've probably never been poor so you don't understand how far $5 can take you in america - here's a nice showcase of what you can eat for $3.33/day

https://stackyourdollars.com/eat-on-5-a-day/

that's bacon/eggs/toast for breakfast beef burritos for lunch chicken and vegetables for dinner

and that meat you're spending money on can all be replaced by far cheaper healthier alternatives like lentils or beans

So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about

yet another $5/day menu that includes snacks, with mostly healthy foods and surpasses most peoples calorie needs https://uhs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/sos-eatingwell5...

I could do this all day, honestly as it's not even remotely hard to eat very healthy and very well on $5/day

> You can literally eat pure sugar, twinkies, and sugary beverages exclusively at base metabolism maintenance calories and never become obese.

You changed your argument from nutrition to calories.

> As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and lived far below the poverty line for like 8 years of my adult life.

As for your ignorant assumptions,

> Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can eat far healthier than the average american on the lowest budgets in the US. At literally half the poverty line if you spend 30% of your budget on food that's $5 a day on food - now you've probably never been poor so you don't understand how far $5 can take you in america - here's a nice showcase of what you can eat for $3.33/day

None of this would be true in a place like California, especially if you live in a food desert.

> So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about

So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about

> I could do this all day, honestly as it's not even remotely hard to eat very healthy and very well on $5/day

Yea, maybe where ever you live, not here.

well you can choose to remain ignorant if you want, the second link I provided was based off prices in california...not just california, but berkley - which is right next to the most expensive grocery city in california (oakland)

Not to mention I'm being extremely generous by using a salary that is 50% of the poverty line on top of only utilizing 30% of that for food and on top of that building meals that provide more nutrition than the average wealthy american gets by far.

but you've since left the domain of attempting reason, but I'm hoping that's just because you have too much ego on the internet but can still absorb information and utilize it later.

> well you can choose to remain ignorant if you want, the second link I provided was based off prices in california...not just california, but berkley - which is right next to the most expensive grocery city in california (oakland)

You don't even fully read the links you provide.

> Cost estimates based on Safeway and Berkeley Bowl prices advertised in January 2013.

> Note that costs are for portions used in the menu; your up-front cost will be higher if you purchase all items on the list as packaged.

Furthermore, this is only for one person. This menu doesn't work for little kids because they need formula. It doesn't work for teenagers because they're ravenous eating machines. And if they're particularly active kids, then this doesn't even meet the caloric needs.

This menu is for an adult that is relatively sedentary. If you're talking about working class people that do manual labor, this is completely inadequate.

> but you've since left the domain of attempting reason, but I'm hoping that's just because you have too much ego on the internet but can still absorb information and utilize it later.

Right back at ya.

> It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships"

And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?

if you read the rest of my comment I'm sure you'll find a point in there. Picking out a single comment you don't like and ignoring the context of the debate adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not about to debate the merits of diet 100 years ago vs today in a thread about whether or not people in the US can or can't get access to adequate nutrition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com