For me, the topic was your claim that poor people can't eat healthy food since it is too expensive. I think such falsehoods are destructive, and so I corrected it.

I think that focus is yours more than it is mine. I simply provided it as a counter-example to your false statement. You treat my example as were it normative for poor people - it isn't. Nowhere have I said poor people should eat that diet, and nowhere have I said they should be ashamed they don't.

Yes, I see that's where you're coming from, and what blinds you in this discussion. You hate people that have a specific attitude towards poor people, and then you make some kind of logical fallacy by assuming that anyone who contradicts you in your claims about the necessity of poor people's choices have that attitude. You simply trigger swiftly, jump to conclusions, and then you refuse to let go of them.

Sure, but don't you take the victim-of-circumstance thing a bit too far? If you say poor people can't help it and they need to eat crap and become obese, haven't you created a self-fulfilling prophesy? In reality, the likelihood of becoming or staying poor varies wildly with attitudes, culture and knowledge.

Tell me, how could I have told you that you were wrong about poor people not having the option of a healthy diet, without providing an example and thus have you go ape-shit? How should I have sugar-coated it?

Again, I point out that your idea of food-or-medicine is irrelevant, since healthy food isn't more expensive and so doesn't preclude medicine purchases any more than crap food does. And, of course, lots of medicine is used to fix symptoms of bad diets, smoking and alcohol use.

My priority is promoting correct information, and what we are talking about is you being wrong about the affordability of healthy diets. Have you seen the xkcd comic "somebody is wrong on the Internet"? That's me, while you're an irrational crusader that prefers falsehoods to admitting something that, in a later association step, could lead to someone thinking poor people should be ashamed of themselves.

If nutritional economics were trivial, I guess you wouldn't keep being wrong about it?

You seem to know a lot about trolling... My main take-away from this discussion is what I learned when I looked into minimalistic diets as a linear programming problem in preparation for one of my earlier comments. What's your take-away?

Thanks, I was a bit surprised that anyone else read this subthread. I think Barbara's rather, well, narrow perspective on how a discussion should be conducted made us lose sight of the big picture, and you lead us back to it. We seem to agree that there is no economic reason for people to have unhealthy diets, contrary to Barbara's original claims.

And yes, my intention was to supplement the diet with some cheap veggies to close any micronutrient gaps. But it was also the case that I got a bit caught up in the idea of how to construct a minimal healthy diet as a sort of linear programming problem. I did the math and now I know the idea holds water.

If you want to stop, then that's fine with me. I've done the maths and have proven my estimate to myself, and I've managed to abstain from going along with your attempts to reduce this to an insults-only shouting game, so I'm fairly pleased at where we're at. I can lead a horse to the water, and so on. Merry Christmas to you!

Did you, I must have missed that? I anticipate another deadlock: I propose we should do the math and compare with the RDAs, and you propose we should battle it out with appeals to authority (that are unlikely to have researched boorish minimalist diets). We won't agree on this, right?

These things aren't made in a vacuum. Their creators know people aren't going to go for very tedious designed diets, so they try to make nice rules of thumb that will allow people to eat some junk and empty calories, and some of this and some of that, but despite this get a complete diet without too much thinking.

Then show me the deficiency and unhealthiness. You can't back up your claims with facts, can you? (I'll try to get the time to post some numbers later.)

You're getting quite obsessive, you know, and you diverge further and further from a fruitful discussion on nutrition and costs - not that you ever seemed very interested in that. For the record, I fully stand by that quote on the American auto industry and the economic crisis. If you feel it is trollish, that's your problem.

Ah, that's the eight time. You are beginning to show some autistic traits here. You simply can't accept that there's another valid point of view, and you can't let it go, can you?

Please go ahead. (Btw, poor people have no different nutritional needs than other people, so let's make that "all that a person needs to live on".)

I see that your main interest lies in these kinds of judgements. Me, I don't care about that aspect. But I think you might be surprised at who would be labeled a SOB.

(Is this the seventh time?) There was a point in providing costs for two different types of packaging. (And again, it

Or milk.

Then explain what would kill you with the diet I proposed. (Shall we do a complete RDA listing to see if there are any deficiencies in my diet? You do one, I do one, and then we compare?)

Again, a carrot.

I never have.

Which, again, is wrong, since you can build a healthy diet very cheaply. Yes, it's less dull to have a healthy diet if you throw money at it because the money allows for tastier choices and more variety.

If they can afford to eat at all, they can afford to eat my healthy variety.

Upgrade your reading comprehension, please. I skip the rest of your medical tirade since it is based on your sloppy reading or intentional misreading.

I don't say that. I say that everybody needs to eat, or death will ensue. And you could just as well eat healthy food, since it is as cheap. This makes medical costs irrelevant to this argument.

Again, irrelevant, for the same reason.

Again and again, you say poor people can't do it for economical reasons. Again and again, you're wrong.

Yes, and you've always been wrong. My suggestion for a fruitful discussion is that you open up for delving deeper into this subject instead of trying to portray me as mean. How about it?

Don't know how I managed to post that anonymously.

You win. (You seem to need that, and I don't mind.) Have a nice day.

The difference between you and me is that you're intent to "win the argument", while I'm trying to provide some info and engage in a fruitful discussion. You talk about an apples-to-oranges comparison, but that was the whole point! Lots of people don't make smart choices, and I pointed out a smarter choice. You talk about poor people eating bad food out of necessity. It isn't necessary at all, and I've shown this. It doesn't matter whether the M&C example was more expensive than one made from the ground up - rice is healthier anyway and as cheap or cheaper.

If I were like you, I'd start to shout "lie" here. I don't imply stuff.

Good, you didn't find more holes in my diet, so you feel the need to pounce at a previous hole. That's OK.

Nah, the first mistake, AFAIK. (I think a majority of Barbaras speaking English and talking about mac-and-cheese are American. Also, you started out by refering to a wikipedia article about poverty in the US.)

I'm not interested in that aspect. I provide information, and if you construe that as insulting, that's your problem.

"Over the past eighty years, the food expenditures at home category declined from 20.3% of income to a paltry 5.6% of income." Before you scream "lie", please note that this is measured for the average or median American. However, it gives some idea of how ridiculously cheap food have become.

Yes you can. I provided a base diet that would meet nutritional needs very well and prevent obesity, as well as being very cheap. That doesn't mean anyone should limit himself to that. You should switch stuff around a bit. Buy cabbage, root veggies and so on when in season and cheap. Add some chicken when you can afford it. Variety is good, but you don't need very much with the diet I suggested.

I don't agree. I think good information is important for everyone and that it stands on its own. I could be Dracula or Santa Claus, rich or poor, it doesn't matter.

No, I don't. Perhaps that's why I can discuss this rationally, while you seem completely stuck?

I doubt baseless accusations does anything to further the discussion. If you don't think discounted prepared food in large quantities qualifies as "bulk", than that's ok, but it doesn't make me a liar.

I shop, and I cook from basic ingredients, and I never use that type of half-ready stuff. As I Swede, I'm not even that familiar with M&C. However, we were talking about what poor, obese people often do, and you mentioned M&C and FF. If you think the demographics we were talking about is typically making these dishes by using "raw" ingredients, macaroni, cheese, cream, potatoes and so on, then fine. But it is still less nutritious and more costly that a suitable mix of rice, milk, canola and carrots.

Again, sure excess salt can make you retain a bit extra water, but not very much. Do a controlled experiment - eat the same amount of calories but cut out all but 500 mg of sodium. How much water do you expect to have lost when at a new equilibrium? 0.5-1 kg?

Yes, vitamin A deficiency is common in rice based societies. As I said, eat some carrots. 100 g/day should suffice. Or you could do 10 grams of liver. I don't think any of that would add much to the expenditure. Look, even with a moderate vitamin A deficiency, the diet I'm talking about would make fat people SO much more healthy overall.

Americans seems to have such a messed up idea of healthy eating. Again, you don't need meat or fish. How hard is that to understand? And I googled American prices more as a service to you, since I thought you would think it strange if I started quoting Swedish prices.

Again, junk is expensive. You talked about M&C and FF as stuff poor people had to eat to make ends meet. I pointed out that it is easy to find healthy, cheaper alternatives that doesn't make you fat if you don't really push yourself to overeat. Don't you agree? It seems you are making excuses. Why?

Yes it is. That would combine to a very complete diet with ok macronutrient proportions, most or all vitamins or minerals, complete proteins, good fats and plenty fibers.

Sure, buy some carrots as well. Meat? Why, the milk and rice will give you the protein you need. You certainly don't need bread and eggs either. Bread is more of a problem than a solution to anything.

That was bulk macaroni, 2.5 kg worth.

The 40 kg was body fat at a calorie content of some 8000 kcal/kg (body fat is not pure fat). A 2 kg bag of frozen fries would translate to only some 3000 kcal, so you'd need 40*8000/3000 = 106 such bags (in excess of your daily need) to pack on the 40 kg, or $216. (Less if you add fat, of course.)

Cheap brown rice is good for you, sorry if you don't like it. For a bit of extra cost, still undercutting mac-and-cheese, you could do tasty, nutritious risottos.

That's a nonsense excuse for being fat. Our bodies regulates our sodium content quite precisely by disposing of excess in the urine. And soft drinks, why would you drink that if you're poor, or rich, for that matter. Fat guys are fat, not full of water. Otherwise you could get rid of the excess weight really fast. You can lose a few pounds rapidly the first few days of a diet, but that's mostly emptying carbs in muscles, and the water it bound. Not sodium.

Again, nonsense. I used real numbers as well. Let's face it - food, nutritious food, is really, really cheap. Poor people often eat expensive, unhealthy food in excess not because they need to, but for the same reasons they are poor.

This is untrue on many levels. First, you can go on mac-and-cheese diet without becoming obese - you just have to balance calories in with calories out. Second, Mac-and-cheese and french fries isn't cheap, not even per calorie. Rice, milk and canola oil, for example, is cheap and healthy food.

People eat unhealthily because they don't care much about their health, haven't learned good eating habits or cooking skills, have a problem with delaying gratification and with exercising self restraint. The latter problems also causes poverty since it doesn't make you go for education and make an effort to get better jobs.

I googled and found a big box of "Kraft Original Macaroni & Cheese Dinner - 12/7.25 oz" for $26. That's about $10/kg or $2.70/1000 kcal. If you are 40 kg overweight, you have overeaten mac-and-cheese to the tune of some $864 and could save a similar amount if you would go on a diet to rid yourself of the excess weight. Tell a Bangladeshi bread-winner that overeating $864 is an indicator of poverty and see what he or she says!

I also found a 50 pound bag of brown rice for $74, or $3.26/kg or $0.95/1000 kcal. Google "What Does 200 Calories Cost?" btw.

I get a bit angry when I read that, so I probably shouldn't respond at all. But just about everything you write is wrong. First, you don't need to boot up with Pu, you could use highly enriched uranium. Second, if you use Pu, it won't be bomb-grade, but reactor grade. There is no reason to use weapons-grade unless you want to destroy weapons, in which case it would be a bit silly to call it a proliferation risk. You claim "not being useful for proliferation dooms Th", which seems a bit schizofrenic since you also claim it is a proliferation risk. First, the military use has no economic significance while the civilian use will easily be a billion-dollar market (if you decide to get rid of fossils). Second, the won't be much of problem installing a U238 blanket close to a thorium (U233) core and get some plutonium that way. Also, regarding waste streams, nuclear poisons, burnup, cladding and so on, you should read up on the LFTR. It solves these things beautifully.