Gothamist: Get Fat, Get Asthma, Get Fat

Paul Marsh

Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:07:37 -0500

I don't believe that there are no decent supermarkets in some areas in American Cities I live in a small(ish) UK town and it only has 3 major supermarkets, all within 10 mins walk of anywhere of one at antwhere in the town. That's Tesco, Morrisons and Sommerfield. I thought the UK was backwards... Also, there are no fast food emporiams in the local town centers and none near schools. the local McDonalds is out of the Town Center. There is nothing wrong with junk food - just moderation. A treat once in a while is fine - just don't make a meal of it

Yeti

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:17:23 -0500

Boy am I glad I'm a skinny girl... I'm only at risk for osteoporosis. I don't see what the fuss is about calling overweight kids "chubbos"... just a well written article with some comic relief. Even though fast food is cheap, it all comes down to portion size and moderation, and for the most part I think most kids could still eat fast food and not get fat, as I did through much of my childhood. Just don't supersize it. I have plenty of affluent relatives who are chubbos too, obesity is not just an epidemic of underpriveleged kids, though I guess the scale might be tipped to that side... we all can get fat if we don't take some responsibility for our boides.

bofug

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:51:08 -0500

Oh yeah, let's send more "subsidies" to the "poorer" neighborhoods to stop the lazy fat parents from feeding their kids crap. A big pot of carrots, turnips, corn, fresh green beans, greens and other veggies with veggie broth and a reasonable serving of rice/pasta will feed a family of four for the price of one "super-size" crap meal. I don't care where you live. My kids love it, and I'm on the higher "socioeconomic" scale, in the Gramercy area. Both me & my wife work full time. My kids are healthy with a good weight. They get their consevative helping of "crap" now and then. If your kid is a pig, it's your fault as the parent. Not the "system", not your time restraints, not your food stamps, location or budget. You're just too damned lazy to give a shit to take proper care of your own offspring.

Kojak

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:59:09 -0500

Sorry to burst your bubble Kanye, but the number of fat chicks are on the rise as well, and I would say at the same rate or faster then that of fat kids. This means that there will be a smaller supply of skinny chicks to go around for skinny guys, which leads to more competition. You’re only hope is to either develop a fat chick fetish, or move to Europe/Asia (Excluding the UK, cuz they're starting to get a little big themselves)

Kanye West

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:47:57 -0500

who cares if there are more fat kids? Fat Kids means less competition for skinny guys like me. When those fat kids become fat adults I'll be fucking all the skinny chicks.

former fat kid

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:06:42 -0500

BRklyn -- Acknowledging that a problem is systematic does't attribute it to the "whims and machinations...of the well-off or well-connected." We all live in a world of structural constraints; the one we're discussing just happens to be particular to the urban poor. As for obesity rates in non-urban areas, well statistics show they're actually higher than in urban areas. This is thought to be caused by an auto-centric lifestyle fueled by the auto-centric design of suburban and rural physical space. However, the urban/non-urban obesity differential falls apart once you start breaking down urban geography by neighborhood. So, obesity rates in inner cities are actually comparable if not higher than rates in suburban/rural areas. Clearly, there's a lot more at play here than just the physical design of the space we inhabit. Here I'd point to socioeconomic barriers to nutritious, affordable food. Of course there are other factors at play that require further research. But as for characterizing the hoards as "cattle" for big business, wow, who's patronizing now? You want patronizing? Try this: Turn off Supersize Me and start reading some actual social scientific research on the matter. The problem would be so much easier to solve if there really was such a clear-cut boogey man, wouldn't it? Solutions that rely on "individual responsibility" and "personal choice" are just ideological rhetoric. This is a social problem; it calls for a meaningful social response.

BRklyn

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:48:09 -0500

1) corporations like mcdonald's are predatory: they prey upon poor communities, because they know that ... 2) ... educational levels in those communities -- particularly food educational levels -- make their populations particularly vulnerable to price-point and lifestyle marketing. 3) corn syrup is ubiquitous in american food because corn subsidies for agribusinesses leave piles and piles of corn lying around. how to get rid of it and still make a buck? high fructose corn syrup. it's cheap as dirt and it's a long-term nutritional nightmare. and we as a nation did it to ourselves. 4) it's true that most urban neighborhood supermarkets are nasty and expensive. so is what you can get at most neighborhood bodegas. on the other hand, there are no supermarkets in my neighborhood, and i don't drive a car to buy groceries. i take the subway. there's no question that this is a hardship. on the other hand, so is diabetes, and so is asthma. the point is that it can be done. (and BTW fairway is a *great* market, and its prices are reasonable by any standard. and there's one at 125th street.) (another note: the no-supermarkets argument also doesn't explain why the obesity crises is felt even in non-urban communities, like the one i'm from in maine, where there are supermarkets galore and everyone shops at them.) this is a question of priorities, for our culture as a whole *and* for individuals and families. tax incentives for better businesses are a great idea. restraints on predatory corporations are a great idea. (note that this goes beyond food corps: once mcdonald's has provided the disease, Big Pharma enters with the cure; and thus are we all took both coming and going.) better education -- oh my god is that a great idea. sign me up. but individuals are going to have to start making better choices too. we can't all keep acting like this stuff is weather, just falling from the sky onto our plates. no one shoves the food into our mouths. the information is out there; it can be had, and so can better food choices, even on modest budgets. to act as though we have no control over this part of our lives is to encourage passivity, ignorance, and surrender. and to suggest that poor people's dietary and health states are wholly subject to the whims and machinations, good or ill, of the well-off or well-connected is just patronizing. corporations see us all as cattle. we don't have to adopt their point of view.

Judas Iscariot

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:58:09 -0500

"My friend lives in Harlem and says the fruits and veggies are rotten before they even hit the stand....Clean, affordable supermarkets? Not as easy to find." FFK: That is such b.s. it's frightening how people refuse to take personal responsiblity for their own health as well as their children's health. There's a Fairway right in Harlem where all the white people shop on their way to gentrifying the whole nabe so you know the fruits and veggies there has got to be fresh and maybe organic. Granted it's not cheapest so you'll eat a little less but you'll eat healthy and quite honestly those poor chubbo kids can stand to shed a few dozen tons. If you were to tell me people in Harlem have to go 20 blocks for a good supermarket I could understand that but hell a Whitey supermarket is right in their hood and they start crying that there's no good place to get any of that wholesome goodness?? BULL. People can make all they excuses they want as to how "nutritious food is constrained" in their areas but in the end it's their early grave they have to look forward to and whitey moving into their apartments.

Eric Cartman

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:14:27 -0500

Poor people tend to live in clusters.

former fat kid

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:37:19 -0500

I left the very first post that has since been deleted. Samantha T's comment that you simply can't deny the socioeconomic factors is very astute. Obesity and poverty correlate, as do SES, race, and environmentally aggravated chronic illnesses like childhood asthma. So the comment about fat preppies is moot, because statistically, there are less fat preps out there. To piggyback on what others are saying, it's true -- foods lowest in nutrition are some of the cheapest. They don't call Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck" for nothing. Also, have you ever tried to get fresh produce and meat in an impovershed area? Significantly more difficult than in others. My friend lives in Harlem and says the fruits and veggies are rotten before they even hit the stand. What about skim milk? Nope, not readily available. Clean, affordable supermarkets? Not as easy to find. (And these aren't merely my observations -- there're data out there to support the above claims.) Inner city's have been termed "food deserts" in the public health literature because access to affordable, nutritious food is so highly constrained. Simply blaming the kids, or their parents, elides the structural factors involved in this health issue. Face it -- fat is a political issue.

Kojak

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:35:23 -0500

The kid in that pic reminds me of the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters. "America is the only place in the world where poor people get fat." That is so true that it’s sad. If we shipped the extra food these tubbies eat to Africa, it could feed the entire continent and still have some left over for the starving North Koreans.

s

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:17:34 -0500

sugar and fat are cheap, cellphones have pay as you go plans. soda is less expensive than water in this country, not to mention the 25 cent drinks at bodegas. my favorite flavor when i was kid was blue. just one of those provides you with 200 calories of straight up corn syrup. I knew some kids who would drink like 10 - 15 cans of soda a day. Thats almost 3000 calories just from that. Not expensive either. So it really isnt all that surprising that Americans, especially poor ones, are fat fucking lard asses.

Judas Iscariot

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:00:34 -0500

okay, that MIGHT explain why poor people in nyc are chubbos, but it still doesn't answer the question of how poor chubbo kids can afford cellphones AND pile up the pounds all at the same time. Are you even aware of how high a cellphone bill can rack up these days especially since it's absolutely ESSENTIAL that poor chubbo kids have the phones in class to text each other to answers to tests and ummm oh yea be in constant contact with their poor chubbo parents too.

think harder

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:21:23 -0500

JO Mamm: Its a complicate dissue, much greater than just saying that "there is something seriously wrong with government subsidies." First of all, there are a lot less options in poor neighborhoods for food, with fewer supermarkets, and the ones that are there carry lower quality items yet charge more for them. The urban poor dont have cars to drive to supermarkets, they are only able to get what is available in their neighborhoods, fast food or little markets or "bodegas" which are much more expensive than supermarkets. Second, shopping for food and cooking it (if you can get it in the first place) is very difficult and time consuming for parents (read mothers, often single) who need to have multiple jobs to make end's meet. All this coupled wih the American cultural disease of eating foods high in sugar (high fructose corn syrup really, which is the worst thing for you) and high in processed fats, and the convenience of fast food chains, which on the surface seem inexpensive, but are cumulatively very expensive, and you have a vicious circle of dependance on fast food. It is true that the US is the only country in the world where the poor are obese. What they need is MORE government subsidies, but ones structured to encourage them to eat better: encourage more supermarkets in urban poor areas with tax breaks and special zoning laws, and restrict the use of food stamps to buying only certain types of foods, for example, prohibit their use for buying soda, high sugar content cereal, etc.

jamon

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:52:45 -0500

America is the only place in the world where poor people get fat.

JO Mamm

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:50:30 -0500

How can poor kids on welfare get fat? I don't get it. A meal at mcdonald's cost 6-8 bucks and to get fat you'd have to eat like 2-3 meals a day. So that's like 12-18 dollars a day of junk food. I can't afford that shit and I have a job. How can poor kids afford cellphones and get fat? there is something seriously wrong with government subsidies.

Samantha T

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:28:48 -0500

"If the study had been about overweight prep school kids on the upper east side, I would have called them "chubbos" as well and feel readers would have taken far less offense - which is absurd." Yet, as many studies have pointed out, obesity and asthma are not epidemics among UES prep school kids (surprise, surprise). The distinction isn't absurd at all. Any story you would have covered on "chubbos" from the UES wouldn't have been centered on serious health risks that the impoverished children in this city face daily.

Kapil

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:01:46 -0500

First - Here are the comments that were deleted (in chronological order): *************** Gotta say, I normally appreciate Gothamist's light-hearted approach to otherwise "serious" news. But calling overweight kids from a socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhood with legit health problems "chubbos" just strikes me as mean spirited. At the risk of inciting an anti-PC shitstorm here, I suggest you save the derogatory editorializing for the hipster in Williamsburg -- at least they're present here to defend themselves. --- Fatties need motivation in the form of jokes and name-calling in order to help them loose weight. I for one stand by Kapil's characterization of obese children as chubbos. Not to mention it also provides priceless comic relief. Whenever I see a totally obese kid, I mostly blame their parents. Yes yes, Socio-economic issues are at work as well, but when your kid seems to be getting a little tubby, it might be best to cut down on the bacon and steak for once. --- You wrote: "Doctors have known for sometime that kids in Harlem were prone to the respiratory condition thanks to pollution and exposure to other environmental triggers such as cockroaches." I do not think it is known why children in Harlem have higher asthma rates than children as a whole. As I understand it, it is a reasonable conjecture that pollution and other environmental triggers contribute. Do you have references to studies proving the link you state? --- Hmm, really depressing? I was just in harlem, honestly, it is like manhattan is 125 streets long. I mean, it is all the same thing. You can spend all day getting from top to bottom now. Its great. Just walk lazy asthma people. --- Is that a picture of an actual kid?!?!? Or is it a character in a a fat suit? That's horrifying. I hate to go the "kids today" route, but I grew up as a city kid and I managed to stay healthy and not get fat. I really don't understand how kids are growing up so obese today. I managed to walk to school and run around even if the street was my playground for the most part. Socioeconomic excuses can only go so far. The kids and their parents have to start taking responsibility. *************** Secondly - I didn't mean to offend anyone with the term "chubbo" and certainly didn't intend to be insensitive towards socioeconomic status. If the study had been about overweight prep school kids on the upper east side, I would have called them "chubbos" as well and feel readers would have taken far less offense - which is absurd. I just love the word "chubbo."

hr

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:51:52 -0500

c'mon people. fatties need love too.

tien

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:29:39 -0500

we were encountering some problems on the comments and the server time error. the fix was to delete the comments that were a day ahead, so comments on some posts had to be deleted.

Steve

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:26:26 -0500

I'm glad Gothamist had the decency to hide that poor bastard's face. Its bad enough what happened to his body, let alone the fact that his picture symbolizes the obesity epidemic among children.

Jen's left ovary

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:22:52 -0500

Nice. Is "chubbos" a medical term of art? What an appalling post. I'm just thankful that you are wasting your time writing drivel at this site and not taking up a valuable spot in medical school.

woah!

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:10:07 -0500

why were all of the comments deleted????

Judas Iscariot

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:58:55 -0500

Yea, that is an actual kid or was if he's still alive. It was on Drudgereport a few months back. I think the kid had some sort of thyroid problem and that's why he's such a "chubbos." When you were growing up MT, I doubt you had computers w/ broadband connection allowing you to post the most heinous act(s) on "MYSPACE" or sitting on your ass all day playing your XBOX or Playstation 1,2,3. At most you would've probably watch your alotted MTV videos and scampered off for some "wilding" to get your daily dose of exercise.