#1. Whenever a survey is conducted or a poll is resolved, the study finds that obesity strikes the young, the poor and minority groups the hardest.

My question: If the poor are receiving assistance from the government, and are, for the most part, being fed at least 2 meals a day during school, is it okay to say that the food the schools, and thus the government, are feeding the students is what is making those earlier mentioned groups obese?

#2. In the land of supply and demand, if there is less demand/more supply for an object, service or good, then the price should go down. And the opposite works as well.

My question is why is it that every time I go to the gas station, gas is always given in $0.10 intervals. Am I to assume that people are buying low-grade, mid-grade and high grade fuel at the same rate?

For these questions, I would rather an answer than an argument. I truly am asking just to know. Thanks.

Cheap food tends to be the least healthy. School food has traditionally been very unhealthy and still is to a degree. It's getting better though. I'd say a lack of real, low cost, healthy alternatives to the cheap and unhealthy foods on the market is the reason the poor and young tend to be obese.

Supply and demand aren't exact sciences. There aren't a whole lot of goods that change price in direct relation to demand/supply. And it doesn't exactly apply to everything. If we went by demand I'd say the high grade fuel would probably be the cheapest as it's most likely bought the least. But then people would all buy that because it's cheaper and better which would make the price rise again. Ad infinitum. It's much easier to just have a set interval for low, mid, and high grade than to have them constantly switching order.

"My question is why is it that every time I go to the gas station, gas is always given in $0.10 intervals. Am I to assume that people are buying low-grade, mid-grade and high grade fuel at the same rate?"

Two comments:

1) Although that was the case for years, I haven't seen that in some time in our area. Premium fuel is usually about 35-40 cents more than the regular as opposed to 20 cents. I'm seeing a lot more staggered pricing.

2) There are externalities with fuel, if the service manual calls for premium gas, that is what people pay for (especially if the car is under warranty). Lower volume doesn't necessarily mean lower demand, especially with "luxury" costs that in the grand scheme of luxury are still relatively low. Even during the height of gas prices a couple years ago, the price at the pump was an inconvenience, and still less than our monthly cable bill.

Even with school menu choices getting healthier -- students STILL HAVE A CHOICE. Most aren't going to pick what's healthier when the junk food tastes better.

And what kids are eating isn't the problem so much as the lack of physical exercise on the part of most youngsters.

We don't have physical education in the schools like we used to, and with all the electronic gizmos out there today, most kids are busy playing indoors than going out and playing sports that actually burn calories and get you in shape.

I believe if kids were as active today as they were when I was growing up, we wouldn't be seeing nearly the obesity and related problems, regardless of the availability of junk food.

But all of this doesn't address an even bigger factor (I believe) in obesity these days: portion size. We're out of control when it comes to the amount of food that's routinely being given to all of us when we eat out. That sense that the plate needs to be filled to the max carries over at home, I think, which perpetuates the problem.

"We're out of control when it comes to the amount of food that's routinely being given to all of us when we eat out."

See the point, but don't see why it is a problem. My wife and I eat out maybe 3 times a month, and when we do we have absolutely no problem taking food home with us and have never been rejected in that regard. Sure the Cheesecake Factory gives you more food than Andre the Giant could possibly eat, but how is that a bad thing? That's my lunch and dinner the next day. How lacking in self-discipline can someone be to nosh up every bite?

If people back their tummies from the dinner table and take the forks out of their pieholes, it doesn't matter how much you are served, you aren't forced to eat it. Food is the only commodity where apparently being given too much is a bad thing.

Writerbuckeye;424275 wrote:Even with school menu choices getting healthier -- students STILL HAVE A CHOICE. Most aren't going to pick what's healthier when the junk food tastes better.

And what kids are eating isn't the problem so much as the lack of physical exercise on the part of most youngsters.

We don't have physical education in the schools like we used to, and with all the electronic gizmos out there today, most kids are busy playing indoors than going out and playing sports that actually burn calories and get you in shape.

I believe if kids were as active today as they were when I was growing up, we wouldn't be seeing nearly the obesity and related problems, regardless of the availability of junk food.

But all of this doesn't address an even bigger factor (I believe) in obesity these days: portion size. We're out of control when it comes to the amount of food that's routinely being given to all of us when we eat out. That sense that the plate needs to be filled to the max carries over at home, I think, which perpetuates the problem.

Exactly. I'll be honest, I did not eat all that healthy as a child. I ate very fatty foods for breakfast, lunch and dinner and snacked in between. I can remember as a teen sitting down and eating a whole large pizza in one setting on a regular basis. I drank several pops a day. Was I obese? Heck no. In fact, I was skinny as a rail. The fact of the matter was I burnt a ton of calories.

My day consisted of the following during summer. I woke up, ate breakfast, went outside and played sports and/or rode my bike all day long. If I were played organized sports, I rode my bike to practice or game (unless the game was far away). I went home briefly for lunch and supper (Unless I was eating at a friend's house) but quickly got back to it. I stayed out until it got dark, when my parents asked me to come home. When I got home, I often ate a big bag of Doritos or some other snack my parents had in the fridge. During the school months, my schedule was much of the same, except for being in class and doing homework of course.

Writerbuckeye;424275 wrote:Even with school menu choices getting healthier -- students STILL HAVE A CHOICE. Most aren't going to pick what's healthier when the junk food tastes better.

And what kids are eating isn't the problem so much as the lack of physical exercise on the part of most youngsters.

We don't have physical education in the schools like we used to, and with all the electronic gizmos out there today, most kids are busy playing indoors than going out and playing sports that actually burn calories and get you in shape.

I believe if kids were as active today as they were when I was growing up, we wouldn't be seeing nearly the obesity and related problems, regardless of the availability of junk food.

But all of this doesn't address an even bigger factor (I believe) in obesity these days: portion size. We're out of control when it comes to the amount of food that's routinely being given to all of us when we eat out. That sense that the plate needs to be filled to the max carries over at home, I think, which perpetuates the problem.

People do get way too much food.

Although everyone I know was pretty damned active when they/me were kids and still are. Maybe I was in the group just before this problem (IE: I grew up with a Genesis and not a Playstation or Xbox). It seems like the kids just younger than me are weird in many ways. One of them is that they must answer a text message if they receive one right when they get it. They cannot hold off for any amount of time. It seems like the kids in my grade/age are more relaxed about texting. Maybe it's because when were in middle school and high school texting still cost a lot of money.

But I digress. If you're blaming the government for someone being fat then I have a larger problem with your argument.

Manhattan Buckeye;424281 wrote:"We're out of control when it comes to the amount of food that's routinely being given to all of us when we eat out."

See the point, but don't see why it is a problem. My wife and I eat out maybe 3 times a month, and when we do we have absolutely no problem taking food home with us and have never been rejected in that regard. Sure the Cheesecake Factory gives you more food than Andre the Giant could possibly eat, but how is that a bad thing? That's my lunch and dinner the next day. How lacking in self-discipline can someone be to nosh up every bite?

If people back their tummies from the dinner table and take the forks out of their pieholes, it doesn't matter how much you are served, you aren't forced to eat it. Food is the only commodity where apparently being given too much is a bad thing.

I'm not going to argue with you because I agree ALL of this comes down to personal accountability and discipline.

Having said that, when it becomes ingrained in our culture to have huge portion sizes, I don't see that as being a positive. No, I am not in favor of any nanny state laws forcing smaller portions. I'm not sure what the answer is (aside from people magically turning around their behavior, which isn't going to happen).

I see the public information campaigns out there now trying to get people to exercise more, especially kids, and that's all good. But requiring more physical exercise as part of a healthy curriculum in schools isn't getting into the realm of too nanny state, as far as I'm concerned. I think schools have a responsibility to try and strike a balance of what's best for kids, and this certainly fits that mode.

Nice post Writer.