Jamie's Ministry of Food

g'em

Thanks for the link, I'll take a read of it and get back to it.

MoominPapa wrote: »

My first post in this thread gives an explanation - its tasty and high in calories

So are people eating junk food and ignoring the fact that it's bad for them? Or is it that they genuinely don't know better?

It's hard to believe the latter, a lack of education is one thing, but food like take-aways, crisps and chips is blatantly unhealthy, and to be quite that ignorant of the effects that eating crap all day every day is difficult to comprehend. I see what you're saying but I guess it just doesn't wash with me.

Khannie

g'em wrote: »

So are people eating junk food and ignoring the fact that it's bad for them? Or is it that they genuinely don't know better?

It's hard to believe the latter, a lack of education is one thing, but food like take-aways, crisps and chips is blatantly unhealthy, and to be quite that ignorant of the effects that eating crap all day every day is difficult to comprehend. I see what you're saying but I guess it just doesn't wash with me.

Have to agree with this. Everybody knows take aways are pure sh*te.

g'em

MoominPapa wrote: »

Here you go (Googled "Povety" + "obesity" - first result) http://www.sirc.org/articles/poverty_and_obesity.shtml
Theres plenty more where that came from.

So this is supporting your ascertation that poverty is the prevalent cause of obesity. Fair enough, but we can still argue that being poverty does not mean a life sentence of ill health or obesity. From the article (quoted from some guy called Bob Holman, who's qualifications are glossed over and it simply says he 'quit academia to work on projects in socially deprived areas):

"This is not rocket science. Poor health is a well-known feature of deprivation. Mothers are not daft and they do know fat and crisps are bad for children but they can't afford the alternative. The Government has to give them the means. Initiatives are not going to change anything unless you've got the cash in your pocket. If you buy a salad at Sainsbury's, it's still very expensive."

The first part backs up what I'm saying - parents know that junk is junk.

But an apple costs the same as a bag of crisps. A healthy meal for four can easily cost less than a take-away. Again, it comes back to personal responsibility. We can educate, innovate and inspire to the hilt, but what goes into a person's mouth is, at the end of the day, down to their own free will.

Huggles

Exactly what I was trying to say

g'em wrote: »

But an apple costs the same as a bag of crisps. A healthy meal for four can easily cost less than a take-away. Again, it comes back to personal responsibility. We can educate, innovate and inspire to the hilt, but what goes into a person's mouth is, at the end of the day, down to their own free will.

Macha

g'em wrote: »

@ taconnol - correlation does not equal causation though. Stating that a person is more likely to be fat in lower-socio economic classes doesn't address the 'blame' issue which is at hand.

That reference was in answer to your question about poorer being more likely to be fat. My response was, as evidenced by the report I quoted, that yes-statistically you are more likely to be fat if you are from a lower socio-economic background.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't that that being poor alone is the cause of bad nutrition, but poverty alongside the other factors that come with being poor. To quote the same study:

Obesity arises from an imbalance between consumption and physical activity. The determinants of food consumption and physical activity on the island are complex and multi-faceted. Both, Fit Futures, a report from the taskforce on food, activity and young people in Northern Ireland (DHSSPS 2006), and Obesity: the policy challenges, the report from the National Taskforce on Obesity in Ireland (DoHC 2005), outline the range of factors influencing rising obesity. These include reduced opportunities for physical activity, particularly among children, the availability of convenience and snack foods, food consumption outside the home resulting from work and commuting pressures, the advertising and promotion of an unbalanced diet, the relative cost of healthy options and greater car reliance.

g'em wrote: »

You said that:
which I absolutely agree with, but what's with the 'thatcherite' extreme reference with regard to personal responsibility? Are the lower socio-economic classes exempt from taking care of their own health?

I referred to thatcherism because I got the feeling that some people in this discussion were laying the blame fully and squarely at the feet of the poor. Now the other extreme is to say that they are not agents in their own health and I don't accept that either. I think that personal responsibility is important and that poor people do hold responsibility for their own health, however there are many other factors, obstacles and lack of opportunities that also impact on health and that these should not be ignored.

If all it came down to was money, there would be no unhealthy rich people, which is clearly not the case.

g'em wrote: »

The idea that eating healthily is more expensive than eating sh!te is a fallacy. Long bus journeys? Where in the country don't Tesco deliver?

If you are earning €800/month on the dole, are you going to fork out an extra €6 for delivery? I certainly wouldn't. Assuming a weekly shop, that's €24 extra on your food bill every month.

It is unfortunately the case that Ireland's residential planning over the last 15 years has left a lot to be desired. Urban sprawl and low population densities have resulted in many "access-rich" areas (ie along Luas lines, DART lines), and other "access-poor" areas (seriously lacking in public transport). Naturally, there is a premium for the access-rich locations and so many already poor families are pushed out to the access-poor locations, leaving them reliant either on expensive private-car transport or low quality, infrequent public transport. Morever, the planning authorities have been very lax in providing sufficient recreational facilities in some of the poorer areas, leading to children playing in the streets. Not surprisingly, there is a tendency for more recreational facilities to be available in wealthier parts of town.

g'em

I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet tbh, we're just reading the words at different angles

Macha

Yeah basically :pac: Jebus, if only I put as much effort into my thesis...

Edit: I just want to add that I think it's false economy for us not to invest in this area. I shudder at the thought of the burden that unhealthy people put on our health system through completely avoidable illnesses. Diabetes medication, GP check-ups, bypass surgery, pace makers, arthritis treatment & joint operations, etc. Plus beds taken up for people who had very little say in their poor health.

Khannie

g'em wrote: »

A healthy meal for four can easily cost less than a take-away.

For sure! Let's not forget that the take away is making a profit.

taconnol wrote: »

If you are earning €800/month on the dole, are you going to fork out an extra €6 for delivery? I certainly wouldn't. Assuming a weekly shop, that's €24 extra on your food bill every month.

Bus fare / hassle was one of the reasons mentioned for not going to the supermarket by one of the ladies on the show. I have to say...the thought of having to go to the supermarket on the bus with two kids fills me with dread (I have two kids).

taconnol wrote: »

I shudder at the thought of the burden that unhealthy people put on our health system through completely avoidable illnesses.

Smokers too. Before anyone jumps down my throat; I'm well aware how much smokers contribute to the tax coffers. I'd still rather nobody smoked. (edit: purely from a humanitarian point of view).

I wonder where the cost / benefit evens out for education / health initiatives v's hospital costs.

Khannie

Oh, there was one other thing that I copped last night.....

The closest I've been to the situation most of the participants are in was when I was a student. You're starting out with an empty cupboard. If you want to make soup for the first time (for example), you have to buy quite a few expensive things: Stock cubes, maybe some bay leaves, salt, peppercorns, etc. Now once you've made that investment you have the stock cubes / bay leaves / whatever for the next soup, so the 2nd one becomes very cheap, but you have an initial outlay before you can start cooking properly at home. Simple meals can become fairly expensive when you have an empty cupboard.

Last thing is something my wife pointed out: Salmon was used on the show. If you're not a confident cook and you're on a budget, are you going to shell out for expensive meat? What happens if you balls it up? Pretty serious mistake. Another possible factor pushing people towards the chippy.

Orion

Huggles wrote: »

Who do you think is to blame?

Maybe nobody? These people didn't learn to cook from their parents - which is how I learned to cook. Maybe it was because their parents didn't have time. Maybe because their parents were never taught to cook themselves. Maybe you need to be a bit more open-minded and a little less judgemental. Maybe.

Huggles

Macros42 wrote: »

Maybe nobody? These people didn't learn to cook from their parents - which is how I learned to cook. Maybe it was because their parents didn't have time. Maybe because their parents were never taught to cook themselves. Maybe you need to be a bit more open-minded and a little less judgemental. Maybe.

Plenty open minded thanks and not judgemental at all. If you hve read all my posts you'd see I am in a similar position to a lot of these people but I have discovered its down to personal responsibility.

Orion

I did read your posts.

Huggles wrote: »

Plenty open minded thanks and not judgemental at all. If you hve read all my posts you'd see I am in a similar position to a lot of these people but I have discovered its down to personal responsibility.

Yet you have an issue with others seeking to improve themselves.
Is it laziness that the mother of two signed up for a cookery course because she was concerned about her 5 year olds health? This is before she knew that Jamie was the teacher! The ad didn't mention that.
Is is laziness that she actually thinks that fast food is cheaper?
Is it laziness that she was willing to try anything including cooking in public in front of hundreds of people when she'd only just learned how to make even pancakes?
Is it laziness that one of the men in the class is 84 years old and never even peeled a potato before or is it simply that he is from a different era when women stayed at home and cooked. My own father never attended the birth of any of his 5 children because it just wasn't done - and he's 20 years younger than this man.
Is it laziness that 2 of the women work 10 hours a day and just don't have the time or energy to cook when they get home? I know that feeling. And I enjoy cooking. Maybe I'm lazy too.

Huggles wrote: »

Yeah, this is where we see the ignorance card being played, truth of the matter is nerly all of them are just plain lazy.

Case in point. Did you even watch the show?

Huggles wrote: »

No, I come from a background of I am fat, I know I am fat and I know how I got fat. I am now educating myself to change that.

Which is exactly what the people Jamie is working with are trying to do and you're begrudging them their efforts. That's what I mean about being open-minded and less judgemental.

Mr Magnolia

I caught a re-run of the first episode last night. Fair play to the people for making the effort. The satisfaction they had after preparing home cooked meals for their families was very evident so hopefully they'll continue to learn. It was sad to see that the young girl had never had a home cooked meal.

I must set the sky box to record the next episode.

mags16

I also caught the rerun last night and was quite surprised at how good it was. The programme makers were very sympathetic to the subjects, especially to the girl with the 2 kids who ate kebabs all the time. She definitely wasn't lazy or stupid. I think she lacked confidence and know how. I really felt for her at the end of the show when everything was falling apart.

It's very easy to label these people as lazy and ignorant. But it is far more complicated than that.

Loved the show, will definitely be watching next week. Not sure what to think about the people - on one hand, a lot of my extended family are jobless and live on council estates and benefits, I lived on one for some time, and I know the 'culture' - kids aren't taught to cook, brought up on crap, so they feed their kids crap. It can be difficult to buy nice, fresh ingredients when you don't have a car and there's no supermarket nearby. But on the other hand, grown adults should be taking responsibility for themselves. My parents worked full time and I was left to feed myself lunch from age 11 (mum cooked dinner), and was eating all that processed rubbish. I was never taught how to cook. I went away to college at 18 having no idea. But then I wised up and realised how expensive and unhealthy eating processed crap is, and slowly learned how to cook for myself. I couldn't even imagine feeding children that rubbish. I know the people in the docu weren't the best educated of people, but they did come across as making excuses for themselves, and yes, being lazy. A lot of those young mothers didn't even work. How hard is it to cut up an onion and some mushrooms, fry them, pour canned tomatoes on them and mix it with pasta? 2 minutes prep and about 10 mins max cooking time. (And NO, I am not privileged/posh - both my parents are from council estates, a lot of my cousins are teenage mums who cook for their children). Fair play to those who did sign up for the classes though.

One thing that did shock me - how on EARTH did the 22 year old mum on benefits have an 8 burner cooker? My mum can't afford one of those after working her arse off for 30 years, and she cooks every night. It was shocking to see how nice some of their houses were - big TVs, wood floors, fancy cookers, when I've been working full time and can only afford to rent a room in a shared flat where the oven doesn't work at all.

jimmycrackcorm

[quote=[Deleted User];57482192]One thing that did shock me - how on EARTH did the 22 year old mum on benefits have an 8 burner cooker? My mum can't afford one of those after working her arse off for 30 years, and she cooks every night. It was shocking to see how nice some of their houses were - big TVs, wood floors, fancy cookers, when I've been working full time and can only afford to rent a room in a shared flat where the oven doesn't work at all. [/QUOTE]

Perhaps the house is rented from a landlord instead of local authority and the DSS pays the rent.

I think one proactive idea would be to teach cooking and healthy eating in schools to try to prepare people for a more healthy lifestyle as a preventative measure against obesity.