Thanks for your post and I'm glad you focused more on "social" than "economic"; though they are inextricably linked. Albiet that stress makes no distinction in boundaries, it's safe to say that the poor are worse off for their stressors.
I fully agree that income factors into individual diet and nutrition. But a rich fat-cat who can afford to eat out at the priciest restaurants that obtain the very best and freshest can still be just as unhealthy as the skin-n-bones pan-handler or the fatty coming out of MacDonalds next door. Obesity is a side effect of food science; playing to taste, texture, flavor.... Whether at the levels of haute-cuisine or the snack aisle at "Super Big Food" store.
I suggest reading "Wheat Belly" to get a better understanding of the dynamics. Put it next to "Grain Brain" on the book shelf.
With the exception of grazers, grass-eating foodies etc.. we are a seed-eating species. These seeds can be tight hull'd (pre-triticum) vs no hull (triticum). The original wheat: 'einkorn' got crossed w/goatgrass to produce 'emmer' which then crossed to produce wheat in general: "triticum aestivum" - as a natural species of wheat. Hybridization of that produced 'triticum duram', a pasta wheat with a higher Glyc index #.
New wheat is easier to grow, more useful in processing and baking; Old wheat is/was way more nutritous, .29% protein vs .10 in new.
Its all about ratings on the glycemic index.
New wheat is unhealthy due to its chemical nature
making people more prone to obesity, insulin imbalances, diabetes,
My (amateur) understanding is:
Carbs:
break into 3 groups: amylopectin A,B,C
that rapidly gets converted to a branching glucose unit (a sugar(a carb))
Amylo-A (wheat) has more digestable fiber, the others less so. but in Amylo-B (fruits) and C (beans) the fibers moves digestion to better get into blood stream.
THe higher the rated glycemic index the higher blood sugar, higer insulin production and more fat as stored energy.
New wheat has a higher glycemic index (.72) than raw sugar or table sugar (.59), so new wheat carbs are easy to digest; but do not give enough high protein value.
New wheat is a major contributor to gluten intolerance and is (partially@least) responsible for creating secondary problems like ciliac desease or C.difficle or Clymatia because bacteria and yeasts go all kookoo for sugary cocco-puffs.
Sugars:
Glutens (carbs) come in 3 forms A,B,D
A/B are found in old wheat - einkorn, emmer,....
the 'D' genome of gluten allows for better baking propertiess (for the light-n-fluffy breads/pastries we eat).
But D gets processed so fast it does little to aid in digesting other foods, resulting in constipation. This undigested food produces more bacteria (some of which is bad, or less good).
Glucose, a carb, is a complex sugar, where fructose and sucrose are simple sugars. The inability to process food correctly give a pathway for the simple sugars to go undigested and wreak havoc on the gut flora.
Without new wheat the body would more effiently processes food as it should; w/new wheat in your system, Amylo-A depletes the bodys ability to digest, converting glucose->insulin->fats which get burned or stored - one or the other
New wheat in our diet increases being prone to adverse reactions, like prolonged antibiotic usage
or constipation, or gas. Some mental disorders are fueled by wheat and affects exorphins - google wheat-brain connection
I apologize for dumping this on your post, but wanted to put my thoughs on the subject somewhere apropos.
What I'm trying to say is that our world-view, our reality, is shaped by not being critical of those things we want to believe because they fit so nicely w/our pre-concieved notions.
Our biases, how we were raised, what was imprinted upon us, what is expedient, convenient... is the 1st hurdle to controlling natural human reactivity and use objectivity to get a more accurate take on what's really going on and our role in it.
And how it applies to the "disease vs moral-deficit" argument being waged on this forum.
Our national obesity problem is mostly one of appetites and consumption fueled by big agra and pharma. W/out pontificating on intent or motive,
the greatest net-effect has been widen the gap (and the mindset) between people and the food they eat. Something like 65-75% of americans live in cities; many won't touch food unless its perfectly packaged, and then only move it from aisle to cart to fridge to microwave. Many people who eat dairy have never seen a cow.....
So, food becomes a facimile of itself. More about
the textures/tastes of food and one's willingness to change their POV on it re: consumption.
Being open to
s/{bread, pasta, cereals, etc.}/{amaranth, quinoa, nuts, oats,etc..}/g
Being wheat-free comes very close to gluten-free, despite glutens being nearly omnipresent.
It is about re-thinking one's intake. How dairy (sugars? yeast?) and lactose (protein not sugar) may accerbate intolerances, gas, indigestion, IBS.
and s/diarymilk/coconutmilk/ may promote bodily healing, higherOil%, better digestion. How whole milk vs homogenized may reduce inflamatory responses and cholesterol levels.
Rurality:
Many/most of those people living in cities came from somewhere else; from the countryside. Where is their food-identity rooted?
Are they a wheat-girl/dough-boy (baking pies, pastries and pizzas)?.
Are they a dairy-girl/farm-boy (icecream, cheese, milk)?
Are they people of the corn (pork, meats, burgers)?
Are the a carnivore but free of grain-dairy-corn? Are thet grazers; eating on the fly what is wild, natural, lacking eyes?
Its as much about a culture than its individuals.
Glutens and breadmold are found everywhere; in wheat, beer and ales, flavored teas, booze, preservatives.
Gluten-free, or at least "New" wheat-free, is one of the best places to start getting back on the healthy track. Regardless of income, economic status, .... It's a choice anyone can, and should, make.
