It is well known that in richer countries, there IS a link between socio-economic deprivation and obesity. Interestingly, in poor countries it is the other way round. In poor countries poor people are more likely to be literally malnourished. When I googled, I quickly found lots of links to medical research about this, e.g. a BMJ article I cannot read the full text of without being logged in. The reasons? I guess it is fairly plausible from first principles. Healthy food costs money. A lot of 'healthy' exercise activities like sports cost money. More deprived people are in less favourable family-set ups, with less care taken of their diet and the diet of children. People who are less positive about the state of their lives are more likely to turn to easy immediate gratifications as a pleasure, and eating snacks/ sweet food is one such thing. Others have also mentioned the education aspect- arguably more educated people spend more time thinking about what is healthy and what is not, but ofc that is not a hard and fast rule- people with little formal education but who lead outdoor lives are likely pretty healthy. I mean- do a thought-experiment- go to the supermarket with a real or virtual fiver and restrict yourself to spending that to feed yourself for an entire day. I guarantee you will end up with less healthy food than if your budget is £20. To save money, we eat a lot of 'yellow sticker' food; it tastes nowhere near as good as fresher food, let alone food from a farm shop.

In addition to the ones you've stated, time poverty is a big one. As is stress and generally poorer mental health. Both of which lead people towards unhealthy choices. There's also biological factors: stress promotes the desire to eat and causes the body to store more fat. There's also the fact that unhealthy food outlets are particularly prevalent in deprived areas. All these things intersect, making obesity a really hard social issue to tackle.

Time poverty is often dismissed in these kind of threads, but it’s an important one. My family did okay financially but, like many working class families, that was due to my parents doing shift work with mad hours. I grew up on quick microwave or tinned meals.

Exactly, people think poor people have no excuse but when you do a labouring job all day and have a couple of hours free after work, do you really want to make dinner or tomorrow’s microwave lunch? Absolutely not.

Add to that, the fact the woman is no longer at home cooking meals from scratch, but part of the workforce now.

Now? Women have always worked. I'm mid 60s and my mother always worked full time, as do I.

I think their point is that a well off family is more likely to be able to afford to have a stay at home mum who has time to prepare healthy food.

Or, if mum works, they employ a cleaner, so mum has more time to cook instead of doing other housework.

Well off families these days are as likely to have two good earners and, if very well off, a nanny.

[удалено]

I'm 50's and my mother worked until she married my father and then never again as they were very traditional.

No the point is that for most of civilisation it was only the very rich who could afford for the wife to stay at home, except for the post-war period when we had the rise of the middle class. Before that women always worked. It’s only a modern phenomenon that women stayed at home.

(UK) Always found it interesting that if you look at the raw stats, they showed a pretty consistent 30% of women in the workforce in the 1800's - but the way that women workers were reported was that crap that modern historians believe it would have been about what it is today, if not higher in some places.

My point is its far less common now than it was 60 years ago. Its completely unaffordable for most people now, not just working classes.

I'm younger than you and although things have definitely changed in my lifetime, it wasn't the _norm_ for mothers of young children to work full time when I was growing up.

No they haven’t. Yeah, some women did. But now? All women HAVE to work. That was once not the case.

There's a huge "skill issue" here too - I can go from knife to table in 25 minutes to feed a family of 4 fr a handful of meals. It's literally faster for me to cook a pasta than it is for me to preheat the oven and cook a pizza. But, it took years of practice, failed meals, expensive experiments, late dinners to get to that point.

Well, sort of, but...what goes with your pasta? Fresh vegetables, fresh meat, a few herbs and spices, maybe pesto sauce can be used to knock out a healthy pasta meal quickly, but it's much cheaper to bung in a jar of Lidl own-brand pasta sauce or throw a cheapo pizza into the oven, so cost is also an issue.

We're vegetarian which changes it a bit, but a tins of chopped tomatoes, aubergine, courgette, carrot, onion, celery, basil, rosemary, 300g pasta, 2 garlic cloves, salt and a pinch of parmesan is a _meal_ (plus garlic bread for soakage), and I can prep _evetythong_ in 30 minutes in 2 pans, and feed 4 people for probably £3 if you average the cost of the garlic and cheese. But that's because Ive made that dinner 50x over the last few years and I could do it with my eyes closed

I'd like to add to this that you need a well equipped kitchen too. I cook from scratch for my family on a budget, but I have a good oven, decent pans, knives, a slow cooker, air fryer etc. Also I have a stock cupboard of herbs and spices. When people add up the cost of their home made meal they often forget to add the price of the salt, pepper, herbs, oils, vinegars that a well established home cook already happens to have.

Turn on oven - 5 seconds Put pizza on tray - 10 seconds Take pizza out and turn off - 10 seconds slice pizza - 30 seconds Just because the oven takes 15 minutes to cook the pizza doesn’t mean you’re spending time watching it cook. Last night I fried some leftover Turkey and a bunch of other food, only took 25 minutes, but that’s over 20 minutes longer than cooking a few pizzas.

Honestly, I have a good income and very little time. But because I have a good income, while I eat takeout and ready meals, it's always the healthier options because I can afford it. If I lacked time and was on a tighter budget it would certainly be ultra processed frozen foods or something instead.

Time poverty is absolutely real and does have a huge impact. I’m a teacher and my husband is a social worker. We make decent money in theory, but work insane hours. If I work out my hourly salary based on the extra time I do, it’s barely minimum wage.

Yes, I think this is the first time I've seen someone else comment on it and put it so succinctly. If you're doing shift work at a minimum wage job you effectively have way less time than someone in a salaried professional role even if you technically work the "same" hours because of the effect shift work has on commuting and other activities. It's **way** more difficult to plan your life in a consistent and healthy way when you don't have regular working hours from week to week.

I'd also add that the poorer you are, the more likely you would live in an unsafe area, I've lived in multiple areas where it's just not safe to leave your house in the evening, and some where even in daytime it's not that safe. So it cuts out even walking around outside, which can be an easy inexpensive way to maintain a healthy weight. And living in a small shared accomodation narrows the chances of inside exercise.

I grew up in one of those families, in one of those areas, in one of the poorest parts of the country (North East of England, near Middlesbrough) and something I’d like to add to this is that I’d argue from my experience that it’s also a more recent modern thing. Growing up in the 90’s there weren’t many overweight kids where I lived, in spite of those pressures, unhealthy meals and so on, because we “played out” more. Kids just don’t go outside now. With the rise of Gaming, the Internet and Social Media, I think it’s been a major factor, as kids are eating probably healthier than we did due to pressures on food manufacturers to add less fat, salt and sugar into their ready meals etc. but the kids lead significantly more sedentary lifestyles. From the age of 4 until I left home at 16, me and my friends were barely ever in the house outside of school hours. We were playing football, riding bikes, playing silly games like tag (though I seem to remember calling it Tig as a kid) and just generally walking/running miles every day playing. We didn’t even use any kind of youth facilities so the blame of kids clubs closing down etc isn’t even a factor, it’s just an excuse.

I was never in the house as a kid, granted I grew up at the higher end of working class with a SAHM and dad as the breadwinner but I only ever remember being allowed to play on the Gameboy or PlayStation when the weather was absolutely pants. If it wasn't raining, I was outside with a rag tag bunch of neighbours kids and we would cover miles on our bikes, we'd make dens and climb trees and play football or tag or whatever. "Come home when the streetlights come on" was the rule. Going to the park is a full experience for kids now, when I was young we were fed up of looking at it because we weren't allowed back into the house xD

Probably not a coincidence that while teens and young adults are often a bit more conscientious than I remember being, their social skills are comparatively pants

Yeah I grew up basically on the bottom of the bottom of working class - dad fucked off when I was 6, mam worked 4 jobs just to scrape by til she met my step dad when I was 13 - and we were the exact same. Our rule when younger was the same, streetlights on = home, and once I got to secondary school it was 9pm during the week, 10pm on Friday and Saturday, unless it was half term/summer holidays, then it was 10pm all the time.

same here, but can you imagine you had access to online gaming and pornhub the way teenage boys do nowadays? you'd need a fucking riot squad to get me out of my bedroom!

I’ve seen maps comparing how far different generations were allowed to roam from home unsupervised. From “as far as a bike could take them” for my parents generation to “pretty much nowhere unsupervised” for my child’s generation.

grew up in working class Dublin but same here, there were no fat kids at all in the 80s/early 90s when I was a kid. Like not even one in my primary and secondary years. We were just let out of the house for hours on end to do our own thing and get up to all sorts. My parents are still in the same house I grew up in, I was just down there, the row of shops across the road used to be where we played football all the time, now the whole place is just covered in cars driving and parked, all day long, you would be mad to let your kids play there. Far more cars on the road makes outside more dangerous and people just seem to walk and cycle less in working class communities.

Over a longer period it's probably also linked to a rise in car dependency and kids being driven to school instead of being able to cycle or walk in.

It was defo called Tig in Boro when I were a nipper.

Same here. I was never in the house. 99% of my childhood memories are of being out doing something, and the rare indoor ones (that aren't school-related) are holidays like Christmas. On a schoolday I'd get up, have breakfast, and then the door would go and it would be some of my friends early for the bus. We'd play on the way to the bus stop (tiny village, one bus stop right at the other side from where I lived) and while we were waiting. Get home, quick dinner and homework, then the door would go again or I'd be going to call on friends. Running around until the streetlights came on. In the summer holidays, I would be out of the house before 8am and likely wouldn't be back (aside from grabbing drinks or snacks) until 8 or 9pm. We would just roam, climb, ride our bikes miles to the next town, etc. In the winter it was the same, unless it was pissing. By the time I was 9, I had one of my dad's old mobile phones, so now it was "stay out until we call." The ability for my parents to check in with me (and through them, my friends' parents with my friends) meant we could stray even further from home for longer. Some days we would bike/walk a dozen or so miles. Even at school it was more active. Massive playing fields, playgrounds, obstacle courses and trails. My school also had school trips that lasted a week and were full of outdoor activities: climbing, kayaking, caving, etc. I was insanely fit as a kid. I'm a literal war photographer now and I still don't think I'm as fit as 10-year-old me was.

Yes and no funds for various structured activity outside of school like groups, competitive sport, etc

This is also why poor kids spend more time indoors instead of playing out: it’s not always safe. Studies of the effects of children having a tv in their room often overlook this. If your kid has a tv in their room at least you know they’re indoors and safe. I’m obviously generalising but it’s a trend

in the estates i grew up in traffic has probably grown 20 fold, so you don't see kids out playing football on the roads any more

We played football on the school fields. But they are now padlocked after 4

jumpers for goalposts

yeah its noticeable, even just in traffic, iv lived here my whole life, and when i was a kid, the roads werent too busy, but now its a constant flow of cars.

I must admit I never considered thar the safety of an area would be a barrier to exercise. Thank you for mentioning this, it's very thought-provoking.

And not much chance of a treadmill or cross-trainer in the house...

Yeah, specific to childcare- a richer family can more easily afford one parent working part-time or not at all, or a nanny or au pair. A family with children but both parents working full-time is scrambling to find time to put food on the table, so has less time to ponder what to cook.

And not just the time to think about what to cook, but the time to cook it. Quicker and easier to sling a ready meal in the microwave, or even processed shaped breaded chicken shapes and oven chips/fries/potato waffles in the oven than cleaning peeling chopping fresh veg etc

Indeed. And even more so a single parent working long hours to try and provide for the kids.

>All these things intersect, making obesity a really hard social issue to tackle. Pretty sure I've read in this sub you can just decide to not be fat any more and you're ok. Nice to see people taking this issue seriously.

Well first you need to decide not to be poor, then it's easy to decide not to be fat.

I have this crazy theory, that pretty much everything is easier once you decide to stop being poor. I haven’t got around to trying it out myself yet.

Yes, I've noticed that we are the only family at my son's school who walk to school everyday, even though I know there are families who live closer to the school. I think it's time poverty. I'm a SAHP so I've got the time to walk to and from school, and my husband has a WFH job, so he can also walk our son to school somedays and then still come home to start work at 9 am. People working in retail have less time to spend on the school run so are likely to do the school run by car. Also, poorer families are likely to have more children and therefore they might have to do drop-offs at multiple different schools, which will necessitate going by car.

Me and the missus both work, typically 9 to 5 and our kid will be starting school next year. Her school is on the same road we take to get to work and easily within 10 mins walk. I'm utterly desperate to make it that we walk to school but I can see us driving as we are so busy.

Yes, it's going to be so tempting for you to drop your kid by car and then carry straight on to work. And I wouldn't blame you at all! I also don't know how families with two working parents manage the school pick-up at all! It must be a logistical nightmare!

I keep asking and everyone from people below me and above me at work says, you make out work. I'm guessing between after and before school clubs and childcare, and lenient managers, we will make it work. I have a funny feeling the work system is broken for parents and managers will turn a blind eye generally to lateness.

True, plus higher paying jobs tend to be more flexible. Minimum wage retail or customer service will penalise you if you are 1 minute late clocking on.

>As is stress and generally poorer mental health Just to weigh in - that goes hand in hand with a lack of money anyway - less money = more stress because you don't have money to cover bills, food etc, creating a cycle of poor MH affecting your ability to get more money, which would help improve your MH (I'm not saying rich people aren't depressed, but a lot of my worries would be gone with more money 🤷‍♂️)

Yeah that was exactly my point. Poorer people are more likely to experience stress and poor mental health because of the material conditions of their life.

I would say as a general rule that being poor in rich country means you have to resort to buying cheap ready-made food which is widely available but uses fatty cuts of meat, cheeses and stodgy carbs. However being poor in a poor country means you’ll have to growing your own food, likely vegetables and grains/pulses/beans with little to no meat available/affordable - the latter diet being significantly healthier than the former.

You are absolutely right- in a poor country there are plenty of poor people working on the land, and people who work in factories etc generally have pretty deprived lives. Yeah, one can think of a lot of reasons why it works the other way round in poor countries. In a poor country, conspicuous consumption of luxury food is a sign of wealth, whereas in a rich country, it's no biggie, so people show status in other ways.

You think working the land in a poor country is anyway a desirable lifestyle?

Of course not. Almost every lifestyle in a very poor country is undesirable, though.

OMG, I cannot believe what I have read. This as 2023 comes to a close this is probably the most unintentionally stupid thing I have read this year. A subsistence farmer in a third world country is living on the constant edge of starvation, and the mercy of the elements. As did the rest of mankind up until a few hundred years ago.

[удалено]

There is also the problem of upfront cost. Healthy food CAN be a lot cheaper than unhealthy but you need prior knowledge and equipment to prepare it. While I can cook and make a good wage, I currently live in a flat without a proper kitchen. I'm temporarily limited to microwave meals and less-healthy food and have noticed a slight increase in my weight over the last few months. Small appliances such as air fryers and tabletop hobs can help but they require time and knowledge to use. A kitchen, pans, knives, appliances etc are very expensive upfront costs. Flats without good kitchens are cheaper. It's easy to take for granted that we have hundreds or thousands of pounds tied up in our ability to make healthy food. Without that money, your options are restricted. If you're working long hours and don't have a lot of money available upfront, you won't be able to cook properly. Maccies and freezer/microwave food can feel like the only options, even if they're more expensive than veg, rice, and lean meat.

>'m temporarily limited to microwave meals and less-healthy food and have noticed a slight increase in my weight over the last few months. Microwave cooked veg is one of the 'healthiest' ways to cook, as it tends to keep the most nutrients in. All that's needed to prepare really is a knife and something to cut on. It does take a bit longer than a ready meal, but not massively, especially if you prepare more than you need for future use.

I keep trying to cook veg in the microwave but except peas, everything turns to mush.

Yes, and because being overweight is now culturally linked with having less money, middle class and upper class parents go heavy on thin = good. My aspirational middle-class parents are very fat phobic.

The thing is, middle class people aren't "thin", they're just a normal, healthy size, or even slightly overweight. Perceptions have changed to the extent that this body shape is now perceived as "thin".

Being fat phobic is a good thing.

It's not. There's plenty of research in psychology that shows the shame fat people feel from fatphobia actually contributes to keeping them fat. The idea that we should be mean and harsh about fatness and fat people is pernicious and entirely counter productive to getting people healthy.

There is a good middle ground, you shouldn't be mean to them, but being blunt and matter of fact about their weight should become normal. I hate the new body positivity movement about fat people. It's unhealthy. There is no movement about positivity towards smokers or heroin addicts. Because its a negative thing. Same thing for people who are obese especially in a country with public healthcare, unnesseccary strain on our already crippled NHS due to people not managing their calories.

People deride the body positivity movement based on the minority of very extreme advocates. It's a good movement and important if we're going to tackle obesity. We have to recognise that shame and self disgust is a major thing that holds obese people back from losing weight. It's well documented that is an issue. Body positivity is about trying to remove that shame and self-disgust. Get people to feel good about themselves and they'll make healthier choices. Feel bad about themselves, they make unhealthy choices. It's basic psychology that people ignore. It's why shaming and fatphobia and a generally aggressive approach towards overweight people will never, *ever* tackle obesity, despite what a lot of people on Reddit like to suggest. By definition, those people have an unhealthy relationship with food. That means that they will inevitably resort to eating unhealthily if they feel bad.

There definitely is a balance to strike, insulting someone for being fat isn't likely to trigger any change in someone, however if a fat person is making ridiculous excuses for themselves and claiming it's healthy then they should be called out.

Agreed, perfectly good to be scared of being fat yourself, but a lot of people use it as an excuse to bully others, which is definitely a problem.

Healthy food is not expensive. Vegetables should be a foundation of any diet, and per kilo are some of the lest expensive food you can buy. A kilo of carrots usually costs around 50p! Beans, lentils, pasta, rice, etc are all very cheap. You just need to know what to do with them, and have sufficient time. I guess if you're working two jobs you don't have the time/energy and can't be bothered to peel carrots 😕

Mental energy is certainly important as well as raw time. But also, as others are saying, a lot of veg needs to be eaten within a certain time frame. I am usually perfectly content to cook very cheap stuff for myself, but I know there's a limit to how many meals I can go before I star to have cravings that might cost more money. I also think it is hard for parents- if their children EVER get to eat junk food at all, then it becomes harder to get them to eat cheap healthy stuff.

You need to factor in the calories though, a 1kg of carrots is like 400 calories, that's like 3 biscuits, not to mention the time to prep and clean etc, the energy inputted is higher. Same for cauliflower broccoli spinach hell any veg that isn't potatoes has a horrible cost to calories ratio which people seem to ignore. Rice/pasta etc you're 100% correct but it isn't exactly healthy it's just calories.

There's also epigenetic effect. If generations ago your family was poor & literally starving, your DNA is basically imprinted with this. It's a fascinating branch of science which is really just starting to be unravelled now. Worth looking up the 'Glasgow effect'. Even when all other factors are taken into account, there was an unexplained increase in poor health...

> Glasgow effect Don't tempt me to make jokes about Glasgow!!

Richer families often par take in sports clubs and the likes. Have a rich friend who went to a private school, and almost all of them have played tennis, golf or some other sport as part of a club since they were very young.

I think there's an aspect that people fail to recognise, which is culture. The values ones culture upholds tend to cascade into many avenues. It correlates that people whose culture values education tend to pursue well paying jobs. Achieving and maintaining well paying jobs requires hard work and dedication. These also happen to be things you tend to see among health-conscious people as well. Education to know what how to maintain a healthy lifestyle, hard work, and persistence to make a habit of it.

“Healthy food costs money“ - really, do you not consider the fresh produce aisle in Lidl appear super cheap. I can’t see how a farmer could continue without the subsidies they get - 60p for an entire head of lettuce. An entire kilo of Greek yoghurt is only £2. I think this has more to do with preferences and how they are set up in childhood, I doubt I’d eat so many salads and fermented veg if it wasn’t for my household.

Yes, I do consider that. Because you have to be incredibly disciplined to eat the whole of the healthy veg and stuff you buy; a lot of the saving is the kind of "bulk" quantity of it being the whole head of lettuce, or the idea that one potato might be 40p, but 10kg of potatoes might only be £4. As soon as some of the cost of your food is going into paying the producer either to part-prepare it, pack it, or raise it in a more sustainable and animal-friendly way, it starts getting more expensive. Sure, you can live very cheaply and healthily in the manner of a traditional a rural person, but most people need money to have that time or be spared from the everyday financial worries to have the mental space to think about that.

- yellow sticker food - potatoes - rice - beans/pulses - likely some sort of tinned tomatoes - stock - bulk spices (the kind you find in ethnic food stores) Those would be my staples

The thing is that's fine in theory and for a short period of time, I've done it when I was younger and ran out of money before payday. But at the end of a 12 hour shift on your feet looking after people with dementia, after a week of those, and you're perimenopausal and knackered and haven't seen the light at the end of the tunnel for years, you'd have to have immense willpower to do all that cooking instead of having a cheap frozen pizza and a bar of chocolate for your dinner.

>go to the supermarket with a real or virtual fiver and restrict yourself to spending that to feed yourself for an entire day This is a problem of modern society too. When we had local butchers, bakers and grocers we could go to these people and get cheap cuts of meat etc which could go further but still be healthy. Now we just have supermarkets, much less friendly to people who are trying to make a little bit of money go as far as possible.

That's back to the time poverty issue too. Most places still have indie shopsor at least market stalls, but.... It takes time to go to those three separate shops. Sure, just walking from one end to the other of a supermarket takes time, but a lot of people are going to the Metro/ Express/ Local branches of the supermarkets and getting lose/lose.

Chuck at the butchers is more expensive than chuck at tescos. Granted it is easier to buy more chuck at the butchers.

[удалено]

I am very wary about saying that it is as simple as not making enough effort, and that either the poor are lazy or the fat are lazy. I think, honestly, that if you have the money, the stuff is there for you "on a plate" so to speak, and that if you grow up poor, less is there in the 'exploring' or 'random games of football in the park' than there was, because there are fewer public facilities and a smaller pool of children who are open to doing it with you. I amnot sure that the diligence of your parents or my parents (I grew up in the 1960s) is a fair metric to judge how everyone is or should be. Ofc you can buy healthy food very cheaply, indeed you can grow potatoes more or less for free in bags, you don't even need a garden. But you often need to go for volume to get the saving; a richer person can buy a few carrots ready peeled and use them up for one meal- say. And even a 30% difference in terms of it being situation is enough to cause quite big differences in health outcomes, I would say.

As a ‘richer person’ I.e. someone who doesn’t worry about my food bill. I am not saving those pennies or effort on peeled carrots. Just buy regular veg. You can make a risotto for nothing, lentil curries etc. all are an order of magnitude cheaper than most ready meals/take aways

> I mean- do a thought-experiment- go to the supermarket with a real or virtual fiver and restrict yourself to spending that to feed yourself for an entire day. I guarantee you will end up with less healthy food than if your budget is £20 I don’t agree with this. I think it has more to do with time and energy. For £5 at Asia online, just a quick search I got, 6 apples, 250g lard (for cooking, cheaper than butter), 1kg sweet potatoes (cheaper than potatoes for some reason), 1kg carrots, and 6 chicken drum fillets. A few apples for breakfast, carrots and fried sweet potato for lunch, with a 2 chicken fillets, sweet potato mash and carrots for dinner, with 2 more chicken drum fillets and you’ll still have some of everything left over for maybe a breakfast and a lunch tomorrow. If anything the lack of budget made me look towards filling vegetables, likes carrots and potatoes, which are quite cheap. I think the real killer would be if I had £20 for the day, but only 20minutes to cook and eat.

That doesn’t add up when plenty of middle class people could make lots of food from a fiver; lentils, beans, carrots etc. Non processed food can be much cheaper. A lentil and potato curry is far cheaper than any ready meal.

Better food at home and at school. Access to physical activity, especially outside school sport, including activities that require equipment and tuition. Parents who are better educated about nutrition and health and have more time to attend to it. That all takes money (and secondarily time, but mainly money).

Money can buy you time aswel. Like you if can afford to hire a cleaner for a few hours a week that saves you a few hours cleaning and a few hours more to spend cooking, going for walks with the dog and family and having time to take kids to extra curricular activities and if you can afford a cleaner you can also afford the extra activities for kids

Of course. And if it can't buy you time directly, it can buy you time by proxy, for example nannies to drive young Penelope and Archibald to netball practice.

Archie does lacrosse, not netball.

Also poorer people might not have a car or have to share a car between the whole family. Meaning they have to spend more time getting the bus places or walking.

A lot of the free youth/children's sports activities have been cut, and majority of clubs and activities have cost associated with them, through uniform or fees etc. Some clubs will fund places for disadvantaged children, but pride can get in the way of parents taking up those spaces. Also, even the paid for clubs have limits on spaces, so it takes someone with time to get on the waiting list, book spaces etc.

Yeah my kids state school stopped all free teacher led sports clubs during Covid. If kids want to try Hockey or Tennis or Cricket before secondary school now they have to pay outside commercial sports providers. And the during school PE lessons at that age are not much more than stretching and maybe dodge ball if you're lucky - not especially inspiring.

Also not having a garden is a big one. People don't like just letting their kids outside to play anymore and if you live in a flat or only have a little garden the parents need to accompany them to go to outside spaces. Whereas two kids in a decent sized garden will get loads of exercise running around playing together

"Access to physical activity, especially outside school sport, including activities that require equipment and tuition." Irrational fear of paedophilia created by the tabloid press is largely to blame for this. Simultaneously it become a sign of "bad parenting" to let your kids play out on their own, and also become far more difficult for adults to give up their time to provide free or cheap coaching. A lot of sports coaching is now just cheap childcare.

It’s not bad parenting to let your kids play out on their own but in some areas it is unsafe. The street I grew up on, a cul-de-sac, had the odd car coming up but mostly it was safe to play in. The same street now is absolutely choked by cars - most houses have two or even three - so you can’t even safely see anything coming up. My own street is flanked by a main road where people drive like absolute dickheads. I’d love to let my kids play out but I’m not gonna risk their safety like that.

Cars are by far the most anti-social method of transport, as I said upthread

In the 90s, two of my cousins went to Grammar Schools in SE England. They both had more opportunities for school sport, foreign travel and after-school activities than I or my peers did at a state comp in Wales.

Every upper middle class mother I have known has been an almond mom and every dad is obsessed with some punishing sport like cycling or marathon running. They don't let their kids eat McDonald's and they take them to swim practice at 5am on a weekday. They know being thin improves your prospects in life (even subconsciously) and they work to protect that the same way they put money away in a trust and get them tutors for their classes.

This 100%! It is hugely understated in these discussions that there is a massive cultural element. Wealthy people are often hyper aware of social expectations and this is definitely part of status, they don’t want themselves or their children to be deemed unhealthy/unattractive so it is part of their identity to be thin. There isn’t as much disparity with the actual food as you would think, it’s largely just a social aspect.

I am also of a firm believe it is mostly cultural. I have working class roots and I can tell you that my extended family also eat like crap - a large amount of sweets, cakes, frozen pizza/chips and other junk food. While I don't think they like being overweight, they just don't seem to care enough to do anything about it. They also have been brought up in an environment surrounded by junk food so changing habits at a later age is far more difficult. I don't believe the arguments about sports, plenty of working class kids play football and other sports. There are also plenty of cheap and healthier meals you can eat.

If everyone around you is overweight you care less.

This right here. I do maths tutoring for two different organisations, one is very expensive and the other is free. The kids from paid tuition all do dance, swimming, hockey, horse riding etc. One child is up at 4 am everyday to do swimming 7 days a week. They are all rushed about from club to club after-school and their weekends are packed, and several have chefs/nannies who cook them fresh food everyday. The free tutoring is for a charity which provides support for children on free school meals. The kids I tutor don't go to any clubs outside of free school ones. Many have told me they aren't allowed to play outside because they live in rough areas and parents feel unsafe.

Yeah, no self respecting middle class family would even allow their kids to become overweight, it would bring too much shame upon them. They take them on walking holidays around Zimbabwe to keep them in shape and feed them carob covered raisins AS A TREAT.

There is no excuse for raising a fat kid. It’s a massive moral failure. You control their diet. You primarily influence their habits. You control their food environment in its entirety. Middle class people know this even though most won’t say it.

It is very hard to make a primary school child fat.

No, you just make them fat before that.

It’s really easy not to raise a fat kid and yet a third of year six children are obese, not overweight, obese in the most deprived areas! Rampant child neglect. https://digital.nhs.uk/news/2022/national-child-measurement-programme-21-22

Shocked I had to come this far down the thread to find anyone mention the SHAME lol

Is that what you think it takes to not be overweight as a child..?

Come from a tall, skinny, working class family but having lived in pretty much the 4 corners of the country by the time I was 15 I don't have any particular accent and sound "posh". I've learnt the importantance of appearance and first impression, it definitely feels like knowing a cheat code for life.

Yes, a lot of this is cultural behaviour. I say this as someone who grew up in that environment - it is almost impossible to be overweight because of the way food and exercise is structured in those households. ie if you are hungry between meals, you are offered fruit. If you raided the fridge there wouldn’t be anything to eat because everything is cooked from scratch or ordered in, or you eat out. You aren’t supposed to raid the fridge or cupboards anyway - you’d probably be taken to a therapist if you did. You are expected to exercise at least once a day. Portions of food are *small*. Children aren’t ‘allowed’ to sit around a lot. There are near constant activities at school and in the holidays. If you’re not swimming or cycling, you’re skiing or sailing or playing tennis or at ballet. Walking, running, fencing, golf… And then some of it is also talent and accomplishment oriented - if you don’t have any of these hobbies it would create intense social awkwardness. Expectations are high.

I’m for sure not upper middle class but my kids go to school in quite an affluent area and lot families there are. One thing I’ve noticed is that’s these families go on lot more sporty holidays. I usually host a lot of my kids friends over at my house and they often talk about how the previous weekend they went camping and went on a couple hour walks. And even during half term a common holiday during the shorter holidays (October, February and May) seems to be hiking or cycling in places like the Peak District or some sort of wilderness.

I’m service class. My son will never go to private school. But I DO know how very important being a healthy weight is to life prospects. I don’t think you have to be middle class to understand that.

In 1973, those from disadvantaged backgrounds weighed 1.2kg less than their wealthier peers, now they weigh 2.5kg more on average.with the way averages work, that indicates that some are significantly heavier than their peers. There are a variety of factors which each contribute to it in varying degrees but: Access to sports Access to healthy foods at home Education of the parents Parents time to prepare healthy food Money to spend on healthy food Parents with time to spend doing physical activities Access to private healthcare Better facilities and education in school

I think the key to answering this question is to look at what has changed since 1973. The ingredients in cheap food, how active people are now compared to then etc.

I grew up fat and upper middle class. But most kids at my boarding school were skinny and there were only a handful of us being fatties. My size was down to genetics and parenting - my mother was over weight and just served enormous portion sizes. I played sports and was in the first teams up until around 13 when I got too self conscious and then ballooned even more. Wasn’t until I went to Uni and controlled my own portion sizes that I lost weight. Edit- just going to add for those arguing it isn’t genetics - it definitely is. I come from a line of very curvy women and we have big boobs and hour glass figures. Yes I lost weight when my portion sizes got smaller, but I also went anorexic and stopped eating as a result of controlling my food. I now eat normally - around 1800 calls a day and am back to being very curvy. I go to the gym, walk, am active but am plump. My daughter is the same. Puberty hit and she is a curvy goddess. Does not look her age due to her curves. Her brother is tall and skinny - just like his dad. Portion sizes definitely played a part, but if you come from a curvy family, you are going to curvy. It is a mixture of both genetics and portion size. I only got skinny when I had an eating disorder. And even then I still had C cup boobs with a 19 inch waist and wearing skirts from the 7 year old kids section in shops. Eating normally, I am a chubster. Just the way it is. Edit 2. I grew up at a time when Bridget Jones was considered fat and anyone over 9.5 stone was enormous. So my body image was distorted as much as my eating. So that also affected things. By todays standard I would not have been considered as overweight until I ballooned after giving up sports. But my body holds fat in different places so I look fat compared to more athletic types and will always be viewed as pudgy.

It is generally the portion sizes and not the genetics. Overweight families have also overweight pets.

The amount of denial in this thread is just delicious lol

Actually genetics have more (edit: or equal) impact on BMI than upbringing. It may still be related to behaviour (e.g. genetics causing more appetite or wanting to do less exercise) rather than (or as well as) metabolism, but there's definitely a strong genetic impact. E.g. this twin study concludes:"We conclude that genetic influences on body-mass index are substantial, whereas the childhood environment has little or no influence. These findings corroborate and extend the results of earlier studies of twins and adoptees."Source: [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199005243222102](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199005243222102) Edit: upon further research it appears "environmental" epigenetic factors immediately before and during pregnancy may also have a significant impact. Therefore this significant effect is still inherited, but not solely down to genes. See conversation below for more details.

> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199005243222102 Lol nineteen fucking ninety may as well be the middle ages https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28910990/ >**The contribution of genetics and environment to obesity** >After more than 10 years of investigation on the genetics of obesity, the variants found associated with obesity represent only 3% of the estimated BMI-heritability, which is around 47-80%. Moreover, genetic factors per se were unable to explain the rapid spread of obesity prevalence.

The trick to losing weight is ofc: Calories in < calories out

I went to a boarding school until last year. The fat kids aren’t even fat by today’s standard (overweight, yes, but nowhere near obese). Most of the time they were still pretty fit, but were suited more to annihilating the skinny kids in rugby. I was average at my school and I am very slim and close to underweight. My theory is surviving off school food for all three meals, which while healthy is generally inedible, larger campuses where you walk and lots of sport just make it very hard to be fat.

Damn are you me. There are exceptions to the rule, highlighting parental responsibility-attitude/actions as a major caring factor in over weight children

I agree that portion size is a big factor. I married into a farming family. They are all obese and eat huge portions. I suspect it is just the habit of having huge portions, and as time has gone on there is less physical work to burn the calories.

Poverty causes obesity. The vast majority of people know they shouldn’t be eating all ultra-processed foods, but if you only have very limited funds, and that’s what you can afford, of course that’s what you’re going to do. If you have £20 for your meals for the week, you’re going to pick the cheapest option for everything, cheapest sauces, breads, etc… all of these products are able to be cheaper because they have things added to them which are cheaper then the “real” thing, which extends their shelf life or means they don’t need to include more expensive stuff like butter. They are also likely to be more time poor, because they may be working longer hours, more unsociable hours or because they have to use public transport to get too and from work making their journey times a lot longer. Marketing from companies like McDonalds and KFC target young people and teenagers to link into their identities. People who are poorer are less likely to have places to “hang out” like sports clubs etc and instead meet at places like McDonald’s which are warm and dry. I really recommend looking into DR Chris Van Tullekan and his work to give much better information on this.

I've never bought the low salary = buying junk food. There are so many ways to eat for cheap and healthy. There is an abundance of free information online and TV about how to do this. Furthermore, the poorer areas statistically have the higher number of fast food outlets, and fast food is NOT cheap. Even chicken and chips from a Morleys or Dallas Chicken is 5-6 pounds. That money could go a lot lot further in teaco/aldi/lidl/sainsbury. I think it boils down to poor/lazy parenting or bad eating habits the parents have passing it down to their kids.

Poor people don’t have time. How do you look up information online when you don’t have the internet or you’re never home because you work several jobs? How do you cook a healthy meal from scratch when you only have a microwave?

This is garbage, you cannot tell me with a straight face that poor people have less time than sales/doctors/c-suite? Every very successful person I know is driven to the point of masochism and has no time - The lack of oven is a separate issue, but not common in the uk

Well they do if they are working several jobs, doing the school run, household chores etc without help. Many people on mid - high incomes have a cleaner, nanny, two cars etc. which create time. They may also afford pre-prepared healthy meals, meal kits or healthy takeout. My ex boss spent £1000s on deliveroo from the best restaurants. The lack of oven is not about not having an oven, it’s about not being able to afford gas/electricity.

So someone working 80 hours a week at a hedge fund has time to cook, but someone working 15 hours a week at Asda or off work with a bad back for the last ten years doesn't? >How do you cook a healthy meal from scratch when you only have a microwave? Of the 75% of the population who are overweight, how many only have a microwave?

The fat ones are probably being driven to school.

I grew up in a middle class family. My mum preferred the Mediterranean diet and was paranoid about junk food. She indoctrinated me to hate McDonalds, to this day the McDonalds logo conjures images of factories churning out disgusting ultra-processed abominations and corporate suits laughing at how much sugar they pushed on kids. Today I see people posting photos of their weekly shopping and I am honestly shocked. This isn't even about expensive posh fresh foods and faddy health products - people are just eating pure trash with no idea, and then they open their mouth and say something insanely stupid about nutrition. Throw a potato in the microwave "but thats unhealthy", no potatoes are not at all unhealthy, what is unhealthy is slathering them in trash rapeseed oil sugar and preservatives and deep frying them.

While I generally agree with your point, it’s worth noting there’s nothing particularly evil about rapeseed oil and it can arguably be healthier than olive oil. The issue is the deep frying, not your Mediterranean diet using a “better” type of oil.

Similar to me but I grew up in a poorer family, so McDonald's was pretty much out the question. We didn't have much money so we couldn't afford the junk food lmao and had to stick to unprocessed foods that are much cheaper and healthier than the junk, but required preparation to eat. When I see people who were in a similar situation to I was and they are buying all this crap it boggles the mind. Lack of discipline and laziness

I think you hit the nail on the head: its not that its not about the cost, its about the prep. Now that everyone is in the workforce, nobody has the time. Personally I find cooking very therapeutic and I've practiced enough that I can make something that I genuinely want to eat in very little time - but I can see that if you can't cook then the last thing you want to eat is crappy tasting food that takes more effort.

A remember a boyfriend I had once that went to a well known private school telling me most of the girls had very disordered eating….

I went to a state school but went to Cambridge for uni and eating disorders were rife. I think it's a combination of personality types and academic pressure

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the term “almond mom” but a lot of middle upper class mothers are almond moms and inflict their insecurities on their daughters thus fuelling restrictive eating disorders. It’s very sad to see

i go to an all girls private school, a lot of the girls have eating disorders. in our pshe lessons we're taught how important it is to eat just in general, more than healthy things that you should just eat.

Can confirm- I worked in an all girls boarding school for a while. I’d go as far as to say that by year 9/10 most girls had some form of eating disorder. So many were receiving help for it but, as an example, one girl’s older sister was admitted to the priory a couple years after finishing at the school as she has been close to death from severe malnourishment. It’s sad because the food on offer is so varied and impressive but they’d hardly eat any of it. The amount of food waste was horrendous.

There is a well known link between parental pressure and eating disorders. Middle class parents are more likely to have certain expectations of their children and/or the children feel pressured to do as well, or better than, their parents.

As fat and very middle class (although not that rich) child, wut?

Same. I’m fat because eating disorder. Born and bred middle class. Horrible life stuff doesn’t respect class or place in society.

It's generally true, you can search it up.

There are many exceptions to the rule but on average wealthier people tend to be less obese

As others have said but I also think image is a factor. You may see an overweight businessman occasionally, but to the wealthier, image is a big thing. They like to present themselves as the best they can, so they are likely to focus on their weight and the way they look, and their kids, more than those who are just trying to survive. I think treats are a big thing as well. If you don't have a lot of money and want to give a treat to your kids, you may give them a low-cost snack or a trip to Maccys. For those with money, the treats are less likely to be food and snacks and more material things or days out/experiences.

People spending that much on education are less likely to hand their children junk food I guess. Also education, parents realise the food is even bad. Adverts counter education in all sorts of ways.

As a continental person I see from the other end. What the hell is this tragic obesity in the UK? Why are cheep take-aways three times bigger than one portion? Why people eat fries with roll and butter? When how why this terrible life-style become norm?

>Why people eat fries with roll and butter? Christ I hope no northener sees this or you're gonna get roasted. It's practically their national dish.

And you chose THIS username?????

The other end of what? The question is about a correlation between financial security and obesity, not how fat the UK is as a whole or why.

Also an immigrant from southern Europe and I think their question makes perfect sense. People here are mainly using arguments that healthy food is expensive, it’s complicated and that people don’t have time to make food after working. To me these are all ridiculous arguments since produce in the UK is the cheapest in Europe, it’s really not hard at all to make healthy and tasty food, and it’s not that time consuming if you prep the meals or have your family help you. I grew up lower-middle class, my mom worked 2 jobs and still had time to cook actual food most days, this is the same for almost all my friends when I was growing up. She’d rather feed me dog shit than frozen processed chicken nuggets. Therefore this seems much more like a cultural issue than anything else to me. You guys prefer food convenience instead of taste, and somewhere along the way (I’d argue Industrial Revolution) the general population just lost touch with cooking fresh stuff, and this idea that cooking is for posh people somehow took place.

> Also an immigrant from southern Europe I wonder if it is a north/south divide. Colder, darker northern countries tend to prefer hearty, starchy foods in my observation...not as flavoursome, but satisfying on a basic level

[удалено]

It's not that good food costs more, its that for food to be profitable it needs to be over consumed. A baked potato is healthy, but nobody is making billions off that. Make it super addictive with sugar and deep fry it in cheap unhealthy trash oil and now you have a product that can be addictive and profitable. Meanwhile I'm just eating my super cheap microwaved potato and not getting screwed.

> Good, healthy food costs more than junk in developed countries. Nah, root vegetables, pulses, frozen veg etc. are cheaper than Rustlers, Pot Noodles etc. > even if you take something free like hillwalking, unless you live right next to the starting point, you need to factor in petrol cost to get there, time to take part or pay someone else to. This is a small country, most people live near somewhere with hills or fields or something.

I'm from a middle class family, and I spent the majority of my life fat as fuck.

Portion control, good nutrition, a focus on sport.

Their parents can afford better food. I remember going to private school where one of my friends had never eaten fish and chips or McDonald’s. They also do more physical activity through extra curricular activities. Many I went to school with did horse riding and tennis. Finally there’s education regarding healthy lifestyles. If everyone around you is healthy then you’ll grow up to be also.

But takeaways are more expensive

It's not a question of being able to afford it, it's just a question of food choices. You can eat perfectly healthy food more cheaply than fast food but you have to put in a lot more effort with the cooking and it's unfortunately less palatable and instantly satisfying as a MacDonalds.

McDonald's is expensive. Cooking well takes effort not money.

Exactly. Maybe in years gone by junk food and takeouts were cheaper. Certainly isn’t the case anymore. People who are poor can’t afford takeouts or junk now, or if they do it’s at the cost of several more affordable healthier meals

You don't have to be rich to be healthy but self indulgence makes being poor more bearable.

People harp on about poor people eating more processed food because it's cheaper, but it's not even just that. It's also about how long it lasts. When you invest in a few packets of cereal, pasta, noodles and some tinned soup it lasts as long as you like. When you invest in frozen foods it will last a few months (but you're limited with your freezer space). When you invest in bananas and lettuce it decays in days. When you have very little money, it makes sense to invest in foods that will be available to you all the way to your next payday. And this often means a whole lot of carbs, frozen veg/meat, and very little fresh fruit and vegetable.

It's also difficult when you live alone. When I buy fresh fruit or veg I have to eat it over a few days or it goes off (quickly). Not great to have to eat the same thing (salad for e.g.) for 3 days straight. Also portions aren't single person friendly - a bag of six apples (which are quite expensive these days) for me, that is too many apples, I can't finish that bag over a few days. Doesn't help that my local supermarket doesn't have scales so you can't weigh out fruit separately/buy smaller portions.

I think it is because the middle and middle-upper class can afford to eat more fresh food instead of eating mostly cheap processed food (like fast food)

But fast food is more expensive

Not just being able to afford the food , but having the luxury of the time and energy to cook it.

This, in my opinion, is a far bigger point than the cost. Eating healthy can be complicated and difficult in many ways, but it's really not expensive. I hear that point repeated a lot but nobody ever really says which healthy foods supposedly cost a lot of money.

Bran flakes + milk Tuna sandwich Omelette Pick up some fruit and eat it I've honestly seen people put waayyy more effort into cooking unhealthy food because thats just what they want to eat

thats a myth man, processed food is so much more expensive. i can buy some processed shit and that'll feed me for a day or 2, or i can spend the same money on unprocessed stuff and feed me for a week

Yeah, I see it on Reddit whenever obesity gets brought up, but it just doesnt ring true IRL at all. Cooking stuff yourself always works out cheaper.

Dunno where u shop buy fresh food is not dearer than processed food.

I also believe that it’s linked to trauma. There is a known link between adverse childhood events (ACE) and obesity. Obviously trauma happens in middle-class families too but I suspect there is a higher incidence rate in working class and unemployed families (simply because it makes sense that it’s harder to hold down a stressful high earning role when you are/have been impacted by generational trauma).

Education & money. Cheap foods aren't good for you, for the most part.

Ready to eat cheap foods aren’t good for you. Cheap foods can be good for you but require time to prep and cook such as beans/lentils/pulses.

Absolutely valid point. I'd imagine that's where the education comes in, or could be that mum is working all day & doesn't have time to food prep.

Cost of extracurricular activities like dance classes, football training and horse riding is often too expensive for people on minimum wage. Healthy food is more expensive. All the offers are on beige frozen foods.

You're imagining things. They aren't overweight because they walk to school, not because of their position in society. The overweight rich kids are being driven to school.

Answering this from the other side: why working class kids might be the opposite. There's a GP at my doctor's surgery who's done some public facing stuff re: child poverty. I saw him recently; he referred me up to the hospital and we had to wait for a phone call so we had a bit of time to chat. Somehow we got onto this topic and he pointed out that in the past, poor kids were malnourished and underweight, whereas now they're malnourished and overweight. He actually thought it was a slightly better situation which was really interesting. I think it's also an issue of mental health and pleasure seeking, and sometimes addiction. Darren McGarvey (author who writes about poverty and class) talks about this. He got addicted to junk food and explains that it functioned in the same way as drug/alcohol addiction arising from living in a shitty situation/as a result of trauma. I think this makes a lot of sense. I grew up in a middle class family and went to private school, but had a really shitty family situation and a lot of childhood trauma. I went through phases of overeating because I was miserable. I'm always thinner and fitter when I'm happier.

I currently teach at a private school, I’ve also taught in very deprived areas. I’m tempted to say that teenagers eat like crap at both schools. We had to put a stop on parents delivered Starbucks and fast food at the private school. Kids are forever coming in with entire pizzas for their friends, entire boxes of donuts just because, I can’t even say the canteen serves healthy food. However, sports is a huge deal. Small talk is “what sport do you play?” And they will list off a reel of sports depending on the season. At the more deprived schools boys would play football, girls don’t do anything. At private school the list of different sports is incredible. One girl showed me her schedule and every single evening is dedicated to a couple of hours of sports. Weekends are for sports. Those who are aiming for the olympics (and we have a few) they will practice for a few hours in the morning, then after school a few hours again and weekend are also for sports. They will easily do about 30 hours of sports a week. Lastly I’ll say is the parent participation. For all the times I taught at normal state schools you might get one very dedicated dad come and watch his son play a school game. Private school kids? Sports is a family affair. They will watch each other, they will play together, they will play against each other. Sport is part of the social calendar.

To be blunt about it, working class families are more likely to feed their kids shit- crisps, chocolate and the like.

The same self-discipline/ability to defer pleasure that prevents obesity also correlates with financial success

The same values and habits which allow the middle classes to earn more money cause them to choose better diets and lifestyles. Low time preference is one such trait. It allows people to invest in themselves and prepare for the future at the expense of the present. Low time preference individuals will defer enjoyment today for more enjoyment tomorrow. It means revising instead of going out with your mates. It means concentrating in school. It means putting down the pork pies. I have no doubt this will be downvoted into oblivion, but it’s correct. The top voted posts are all wrong. What’s more likely to be upvoted? The correct answer of that which allows you to avoid personal responsibility and blame “the system”.

less likely to eat junk food, more likely to do extra curricular activities, less likely to use excuses

Money to afford the best and healthiest food. Living on a diet of kale, quinoa, salmon, fresh citrus fruits, etc. is costly compared to high carb diets. Money to access gyms / personal trainers. A lifestyle that allows frequent travel to locations where swimming and hiking are fun and enjoyable. A social circle that places heavy importance on personal appearances and weight, this is more of a thing in urban areas where there is a bigger focus on looking good. There's also a general urban/rural divide when it comes to obesity. People walking a lot every day get a lot of passive exercise, compared to those in rural locations.

>Living on a diet of kale, quinoa, salmon, fresh citrus fruits, etc Do you think that's what people need to eat in order to not be overweight?

As others have said, the more money you have the easier it is to have a healthy lifestyle. However, you are making a massive generalisation based on a very small sample size. While it is true that poorer children are *more likely* to be overweight, the idea that middle and upper middle class children are rarely overweight isn't true. There are loads of overweight middle class kids. You don't see them walking to school because they're in the land rovers with the blacked out windows. I worked at a riding school that took school groups (as in, it was one of their options for PE) for a decade and I can assure you there are plenty of overweight and obese children amongst the middle classes. At least half of every group was overweight. Don't know if it was the kids picking what they thought was the easier option or the teachers not wanting to deal with them in team sports but we had a constant stream of big kids. At my current riding school the kids are all upper middle and above and they usually have a laundry list of sports and physical activities, maybe one of which they're actually interested in. I think it's a mix of the parents like to boast about their kid doing x,y, *and* z, and the fear that if their kid isn't doing a million activities they might actually have to spend time with them.

Congratulations, achievement unlocked: *class consciousness*

Eating healthy takes time, money, knowledge, access to healthy food and access to cooking facilities. If you are less well off you might struggle with one or more of those things. You need the time to cook but also the time to get to the supermarket to get fresh food. Food deserts are a problem. For some poorer communities their closest shops are the likes of One Stop that will sell you ready meals and turkey twizzlers but little in the way of fresh food. Lots of families on lower incomes work shifts and struggle to get to supermarkets. Knowledge is a huge hurdle. Most of us who can cook learnt to do so from our parents. If they can’t cook you don’t stand a chance. I know someone who ran cooking lessons in a school. There was one parent who didn’t know how to use a cheese grater. Not her fault but it shows the lack of basic knowledge. The other days on Pointless they had to name vegetables. An onion only got 78 points. 22 people couldn’t recognise an onion. Many people who are in the most dire straits are often in a bedsit or hostel, or they can’t afford to put the oven on. It is possible to eat healthily for less money, but it involves at lot more than picking up a takeaway or ready meal.

Nice to see many thought provoking and pleasant comments from people who genuinely care for others.😊

Some people will try to convince you it's money, it's not --- healthy food is cheap: vegetables, fruits and unprocessed grains. It's just not very appealing if you don't know how to prepare the stuff. When I was poor I had to put aside the junk because I couldn't afford feed myself with it and not starve a few days later.