the skinniest people probably shop at whole foods not because of the healthy food (other grocery stores sell produce last time i checked) but because they were spending so much money on their 'organic, grass fed, etc' items that they had LESS MONEY to buy items. HA.

Oh wow, there are so many ways to look at this.

People could buy less food and think more about their purchases at Whole Foods because it's more expensive... If only wealthy people shopped at Whole Foods (not true, in my opinion) then maybe they can afford lipo and personal trainers... etc.

I think it has less to do with economic standing and more to do with the value placed on buying healthy food. People shopping at Whole Foods aren't necessarily wealthier. It's about priorities and what percentage of their income people are willing to spend. I know a lot of wealthy people who shop at regular supermarkets, and I know a lot of not-so-wealthy people who shop at Whole Foods. If a person places a higher value on buying healthy food (and is therefore more likely to spend more money on that food, and/or seek out a "healthier" grocery store like Whole Foods), then they could possibly be more health conscious in general. Also, just because both stores have healthy food doesn't mean it's in the same ratio to the amount of food in the store overall. Call me naive, but Whole Foods seems to have less processed junk food than the regular big supermarkets.

I wonder if the study figured in the average farmer's market shopper's girth, they would come up with the conclusion that it's more about being mindful of what you eat and less about wealth. I spend about the same amount of money (of often times less) on the same food at the farmer's market than at a regular supermarket (almost certainly less than I would spend at Whole Foods), but I feel it's healthier and fresher, and a lot of what I buy at the farmer's market is organic. I strive to be healthy and seek out healthy food, and yes, sometimes I spend more on it. However, I don't have that much money. At all. I just make healthier choices a priority.

I think it's more to do with education and being informed than wealth.

Also, I think people who shop at Whole Foods tend to be younger and seem to be a tiny bit more pretentious and hipsterish hence the need to be thin.

Could you please post the citation for the article/study you are citing? I would love to read the full article.

Most people who shop at Whole Foods probably make health one of their priorities. There isn't much reason to shop there otherwise. Someone who cares enough about their health to shop at a more expensive grocery store is likely to also make it a priority to keep their weight in a healthy range.

skinny people havent had 3 kids with a 9-6 job who need to make food in bulk not gourmet.

I live in a college town, around the corner from a Jewel and across the street from it is a Whole Foods. I visit both and there is a definite difference in customers. There are way more overweight The fresh produce section in the Jewel is about the same size as their cookie and cracker isle. What I notice in carts is a lot of frozen processed foods and junk snacks. The Whole Foods customers tend to have more produce and other raw ingredients.

There's actually another Whole Foods in town closer to the campus, so the one by me actually has fewer young people than the Jewel, even though they seem about as densely packed with shoppers.

Right on to everything mandybles said, especially, "If a person places a higher value on buying healthy food... then they could possibly be more health conscious in general." I shop at Whole Foods more often when I regularly run and practice yoga. Why? Because it's next door to my gym ;). But I'm hardly a wealthy person.

When I see studies like this that imply causation, it's like Homer Simpson says, "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." There are many factors aside from wealth that may determine where someone shops. In addition to those mentioned by mandybles: dietary restrictions, brand familiarity, proximity, or even the perception of value.

For example: I needed to bring crackers to a party last weekend and stopped at Whole Foods (proximity). I immediately grabbed Carr's Table Water Crackers (brand familiarity) assuming the adjacent 365 water crackers would be more expensive (perception of value), but then noticed that the 365 crackers were nearly a dollar cheaper.

did anyone do a comparison shopping? say an "obese" woman purchasing 1lb of roma tomatoes super market vs a "skinny" woman purchasing 1lb of roma tomatoes at whole foods? organic food just costs more. that seems to be more important to some than others. maybe its not the amount that is bought but the origin. i shop at whole foods and find the prices to be extravagant. it should not cost me more to feed two people than it does to feed 4 people the same meal. one can of beans is twice the cost at whole foods than my local super market. and how often does whole foods do coupons? trader joes as well. what does where you shop have to do with what size you are? i take offense to the body index we have decided is the standard. obese is a term we've decided to throw around which in point of fact, does not fit everyone. check this out http://kateharding.net/bmi-illustrated/

Hmmmm... It's not surprising. Obesity is largely a socioeconomic problem. Part of it is lack of education, and part is lack of funds. Markets like Whole Foods are located in affluent areas and are patronized by people who are *generally* more higher educated, higher paid, and/or more health conscious.

Also, the quality of products at Whole Foods is generally higher than your average megamart. Whole Foods generally offers more whole grain items (relative to refined flours), more organic items, and has a long list of food additives not allowed in any product they sell. You will never find BHA, BHT, benzoate, MSG, artificial colorings, etc in a product in one of their stores. So, in general, a higher quality selection will result in better overall health. Yes, you can buy crappy refined flour products at a WF, but there's dramatically less of it.

It's been known forever that lower income people tend to be more overweight/obese due to a diet higher in carbohydrates, specifically refined carbs, and deficient in fresh produce. If I were low income, I could spend $2.79 on a bunch of kale, or the same amount on a giant box of Fruity Pebbles. I'd pick the cereal since it's sweet and tasty, keeps the kids quiet, and provides many more meals than the bunch of kale. Also, WF doesn't sell Coke/Pepsi sodas. While they do sell sweetened sodas, they're usually naturally sweetened rather than adulterated with HFCS. This is a big deal.

Also, pesticides and some of the food additives WF doesn't allow are known endocrine disruptors. By consuming less, it's theoretically possible that the consumer is ingesting fewer xenoestrogens which will help maintain body weight. I'm sure this is a minimal contribution to the differences, but every little bit helps.

I'm not sure what my point is, except to say, I find this study interesting but not at all surprising.

Although interesting, this study is more or less "useless" from a practical standpoint as it (apparently) hasn't identified the reason for the difference between shoppers: is it because "wealthier" shoppers shop at natural health/food stores (like Whole Foods) because they can afford to? Do people buy less (or buy more cheaper items, like veggies) at the more expensive grocery stores vs. people stocking up on "cheap" unhealthy processed foods? Is it because people who are health-conscious tend to spend more money on food and/or shop at places like Whole Foods? etc. etc.

Basically, what came first? The "skinny" or the "expensive"? If I start shopping at an expensive health food store, do I therefore become skinny? (unlikely). OR do I shop at those places because I am skinny/health conscious(/a yuppy) and the stat's just reflect that?

@ilovebutter, YES! I agree with everything you've said on this too. The problem is much greater than wealthy people shopping at Whole Foods and low income people shopping at other supermarkets. I'm young, I don't have kids, and I've never met a vegetable I didn't like. Compare that to someone who lives on what I do, has more mouths to feed, and picky eaters in the family, and the healthy eating issue is exponentially more difficult. Lack of education is a huge part too. I, and I'd assume most of the other people who read this bog, am relatively well educated on healthy and whole eating (and it can still be hard!). Unfortunately, a lot of other Americans aren't. Just look at how the people started out in Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution!

I agree with ilovebutter - Lower income tends to be overweight because of cheaper food. I live in Ohio - always on the list of most unhealthy places. The nearest Whole Foods is 45 minutes away from me in a very affluent area...and that's considered lucky to live that close. There are no low-cost health food choices around here except for Subway, which even that is questionable. You can make better choices at the places around here, but that means you're getting a salad...or you're going to pay an arm and a leg for and iceberg lettuce salad - hold the crutons and cheese.

Luckily, organic marts and farmers markets are starting to pop up more and more around here. But, this has to do with the economic culture. Obesity is closely linked to that.

Honestly, do you think that a guy who works in the factories here is going to spend his last pennies feeding his family organic bread with organic peanut butter and jelly from the nearest organic/health food market that's 30 mins away, when he can buy 2 kids meals and to value meals for his family for half the price? It's about convenience and price. Like ilovebutter said, these folks aren't going to spend $2.79 on kale when they can get much more for their buck on a giant box of cereal.

Whole Foods sells some of the products ilovebutter claims they don't. But that's beside the point.

I absolutely refuse to shop at Whole Paycheck. I do a combo of regular grocery store, costco (they sell massive bags of organic quinoa!), trader joes, ethnic markets and farmers markets. I think it's absolutely absurd to pay so much money for food -- even the non-organic items are ridiculously pricey. This isn't to say I buy processed crap, because I don't. Our fridge is regularly full of tons of fruit and vegetables (oh no, it isn't organic! but what does that mean anyway? and how do we prevent runoff? and what cow hormones are in the fertilizer?), we eat whole grains, lean and good cuts of meat, keep healthy snacks in the house, and stay away from sugary cereals and frozen foods.

Shopping at Whole Foods says nothing about a person's dedication to health and healthy foods. It says more about their wealth and pretentiousness more than anything else.

I think it is more of a real estate issue. The location of the store really says a lot about who walks in.

@Oneformybaby: Whole Foods is actually pretty good for coupons. They don't double, but they do stack their own coupons with manufacturer's coupons. Trader Joe's does take coupons as well, but the issue is that they don't really carry very many non-TJ specific items. But TJ's is ridiculously cheap anyway. Their produce selection leaves much to be desired, but I have yet to find any grocery store in the Boston area that doesn't fail in this regard. (At least the farmer's markets are starting up soon. Too bad they mostly run during hours useless to anyone with a job.)

Dear Watchmespin,

The following is a list of food ingredients Whole Foods finds unacceptable and will not sell products containing these ingredients: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/unacceptable-ingredients.php

People make food choices and market choices for all different reasons. Is WF charging a premium? Absolutely. Does that mean the extra price isn't worth it? No, it doesn't, and nor does it make it wrong for people to choose to shop there. When I moved to Houston, I had a choice between WF, Kroger and HEB. The cost difference on my food bill wound up being about 10%, which I happily paid to WF. For me, I felt it worth it -- the pleasure of shopping in their store with it's endless supply of beautiful produce, products that don't contain a bunch of crap, and high standards for livestock treatment. On top of that, they are consistently ranked as one of the best employers in the country -- they treat their people very well, and everyone who works there is genuinely happy. So for me, yes, it was worth that extra $8/week to support WF. Sorry if that makesme elitist. I prefer to think of it as caring about things larger than myself, and using my dollars to make the world just a teeny bit better.

One last point, it's entirely possible to contribute your view point to the discussion without being an offensive jackass.

With wealth and pretension,

iLoveButter

@sauceykat, I agree, this seems like a typical pop culture pandering study and largely useless in terms of actually measuring or explaining anything. There's a huge difference between causation and correlation. I like that it's brought the kinds of topics here in the comments up for discussion though, so I wouldn't say it's entirely useless. ;)

Here's the link:

http://thesunbreak.com/2010/05/24/fat-albertsons-uw-study-affirms-economics-of-obesity

Someone wanted to see the original reference. Here it is from the Univ of Washington Center for Public Health and Nutrition: http://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/reports/cphnbrf051910.pdf

This is a research brief, not a published peer reviewed article (which I assume is coming out later?). Regardless, it contains a lot more detail than the MSNBC article and some yummy graphs.

I totally echo @mandybles that even though correlation is not causation, it's opened up a good dialog.

This is an interesting thread and so far, what AKAY has stated makes most sense to me. But, no one else has brought up other factors besides the common "observations" like low socioeconomic position=obesity, uninformed/uneducated/obese, etc.

While I don't doubt there are general patterns regarding obesity, healthy eating, processed foods vs whole cooking, sometimes it is hard to fit every person into two or three patterns.

My family and I came to the US in mid 1989 from a Central American country where, although canned foods and boxed foods could be found in some supermarkets, a higher value has always been placed on fresh produce and meats. All meals, including snacks, are made from scratch. When we moved here, my parents never lost that custom, even while their "world" was opened to the modernity of supermarkets here. Boxes and boxes of cereal. Imagine that! It's not that there isn't cereal back home, it's just that people don't eat cereal or canned fruit or little juice boxes. They just don't find value and enjoyment from those things.

To make a long story short, in the twenty three years that my parents have lived here, to this day, everything is cooked from scratch. I remember our family trying to adapt to the "American" way and buy microwave dinners. But it's not the same as having a hearty meal while sitting at the dinner together. Not to mention that microwave meals are also more expensive than buying fresh goods. And my family was never wealthy, not even close to lower middle class, by any means. My parents never shopped at healthIER supermarkets or anything of that category. They still shop at Publix or Winn-Dixie and still try to buy everything as fresh as is possible and still cook from scratch every night. They aren't obese either.

Now that I am married and run my own home, when I do the groceries, I keep up with the habit I was raised on. My husband on the other hand, even though his mother cooks everything from scratch too (Eastern European immigrant), has no reservations in buying boxed or canned or frozen goods at the supermarket. Why? I don't know.

I don't know if I had a point or not, but I just don't think that there are three main reasons why people in the country are obese or buy processed goods or shop at Whole Foods or can control their eating habits.

@ Oneformybaby - Hey now! I was a young single mother of 2 who was working and able to budget enough for buying healthy cuts of meat and natural foods.... and I was living check to check. Aside from that, I was well in my healthy weight range!

It's funny how many of us either said "I'm not sure what my point is" or implied it by rambling on a bit. It means that this is an interesting topic with a lot to think about :)

Some other food for thought along the same topic: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/special_report/chicago-food-desert-20100511

Anita,

You're very fortunate to come from a country which still has a strong food tradition. We've largely lost that in the US -- few families still cook most of their meals from scratch. This, is part of the problem (education) -- a lot of Americans don't know how to cook, so fast and processed foods become dietary staples. American food policy -- that is subsidize farmers to grow wheat, corn and soy -- is what's making that processed food cheap and accessible. Yes, of course we can't make generalizations about ALL obese people, but there are certain patterns that are seen. I've taught cooking and nutrition classes to food stamp recipients. I've done home health care for low to moderate income families. I've worked in the food banks (which, BTW, are FILLED with nothing but processed food). So, I've seen it first hand. Most people don't know how to cook anything more difficult than pasta. If we can get people even preparing 1 meal a day from scratch, I think that would go a long way. This needs to start with education. Does anyone know if home ec classes are still standard curriculum?

Anyway... back round to my original point -- you truly are lucky to come from a family and tradition of home cooked meals. Learn everything you can from your mother and grandmother, and pass that knowledge onto your kids, nieces, nephews, etc. I wish I had a cultural background to draw from! (my family came to America in the early 1600s)

There is a lot to mull over in these comments. But a few things pop out at me:

If you are poor, you cannot afford a gym. You may scoff and say, gym memberships are cheap--30 bucks a month in some cases. If you can afford that--you are not poor. Or you have credit card debt.

Poor means you MUST work two or more jobs to pay the rent, to keep the lights on. The only exercise you get is walking to the bus stop, from job to job.

You come home exhausted. Rather than taking the time to do a bit of exercise, or cook properly, you fall into bed.
***
I love Whole Foods. The only way to get to one in my city (Richmond, VA) is by car. One could take a bus and walk or bike the remaining 3 miles. But you see, when you are broke and must work long hours, there is no time to do this. The most convenient store is a convenience store. The produce there is gross. I have often chosen popcorn over the nasty apples available at bad grocers.

I will occasionally bum a ride with a friend to Whole Foods and stock up on things that are demonstrably cheaper than at Kroger--1 pound of organic whole wheat pasta for $1.29 is hard to beat.

On days when I find I have run out of food, am too exhausted to walk or take an infrequently running bus to Kroger, I have dined on Skittles, granola bars, etc.
"Then don't run out of food," you say. "Plan better." All I can say is life is so much easier when you have more money. When you are broke, the littlest things take up so much time. Looking for a job takes up a lot of time.
***
I know all of these things because I am newly poor. I am however, highly educated, and am constantly doing mental mathematical gymnastics over whether buying a carton of blueberries (with their attendant health benefits) is worth the risk of not being able to pay the electric bill. I don't want to die of cancer, but I do need to pay my bills. Organic versus conventional sends me into a mind-bending cost benefit analysis.

I keep repeating Michael Pollen's mantra to myself--Eat Better Food, and Eat Less of It (or something like that).
Yes--since losing my (previous) job--I have gained weight. It doesn't seem to make sense--I have less money--shouldn't I weigh less? I also have read that sleepless nights raise your cortisol level and contribute to either over-eating or more efficient fat storage, or both.

I just felt the need to respond to the subtle undercurrent that heavier than average people are dumb, don't read and are uneducated. It is VERY complicated. Stress is...a devastating thing, wreaks havoc in all aspects of your life. Yes, walking would relieve stress. My neighborhood has heroin dealers--I exaggerate not. I do not like to be out late at night, even though my work requires it. I come home and go quickly to bed, after quickly walking my dog.

I don't disagree with anything anyone has said--just pointing out that the class divide is real, it is growing, and will be marked by differently sized people. I say to myself, "if you DON'T want people to judge you as uneducated, uninformed--stop eating. Just...go hungry."

People always talk about this issue from a highly personalized angle, but ilovebutter hit the nail on the head with, "Obesity is largely a socioeconomic problem."

People will argue this, but the ones who do so are not poor. Poor people buy cheap, refined carbs and work the types of jobs that wear them out mentally, but don't require much manual labor (like working a fast food counter). They don't have the energy, money, or motivation to "exercise" for fitness. The middle class can quibble all they like, but you can't know what it's like to work in a soul-numbing job week-in and week-out to barely keep your head above water financially. It's crushing to the psyche and doesn't inspire you to get out and take a walk, job, or whatever. All such people want to do is get home and lose themselves in something easy and passive (like T.V.).

Self-improvement is an obsession for those who have the leisure time (both mentally and physically) to dwell on such matters. Poor folks are just looking to get by despite the pointlessness of their jobs and the difficulty of their situation. Until you spend a year in their shoes (not a week, not a day, not a month), you have no right to judge or criticize.

As a demographic fact it tends to be the higher wealth demographics that have the lowest rates of obesity. I think it's that causality, and not the shopping, that leads to this finding.

What about wealthy people that are still obese and make horrible food choices anyway despite having the ability to do otherwise? Even my fellow health care professionals who know the effects of good and poor nutrition that still are out of shape, overweight, and see the effects it has on the human body everyday?

Something else is going on, really. I don't think it's so much ignorance or low financial means sometimes as it perhaps is laziness, or not having it be a top priority above other things.

I wish there were Trader Joe's in Iowa. Sigh. I miss them.

Wow! This is a really heated topic, that's good. This is a discussion we need to be having. I believe that the money I spend on anything I buy is essentially a vote. We live in a capitalist society and need to be conscious of where we spend our money. I have the luxury of being able to drive a half an hour twice a month to a farm to buy ALL of my meat and dairy. I also have a store in my neighborhood that only sells food that is grown/raised/prepared within 250 miles. We frequent farmers markets in the summer and have a garden. Food is a priority to me and I sacrifice a lot to make sure we eat with a conscious. We are a young family living on one very middle class salary. I think this has more to do with priority than anything else.....

Or perhaps it's not always laziness. OK, maybe a large number of obese folks are lazy, but please, oh please, let's not go down the road of attributing obesity to laziness.

Take me: I'm very well educated, have the money and the desire to shop at WF if there were one within walking distance from me, and am yet still plump. Nay, I'm obese. Funny thing is, I eat all the right foods. I eat the right amount of the right foods. I exercise like I'm supposed to. I belong to a gym and make use it. I also don't own a car, and I hoof it EVERYWHERE, walking on average 2-3 miles a day BEFORE what I put in at the gym. My weight? Not budging. Why? Probably because I had undiagnosed Lyme disease for over eight years, and I put on 80 pounds because I was very sick, and I couldn't exercise without it making me violently ill. And having Lyme so long weakened my heart. But am I lazy? Far from it. I work full time, attend school half time, exercise like I'm supposed to, etc., etc. Just because I'm plump does NOT mean I'm lazy.

I know another woman who eats right and is very much not lazy, and yet she's obese because of medication she has to take. Without the medicine, she'd be raging through the moods of bipolar disorder. Her choice: Be crazy or be obese. Nothing to do with laziness.

Before we assume obese people are all lazy, perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt, because we don't know what factors may have brought them to where they are. This is not to say that there are not lazy obese people out there, for I know that there are, but the number of un-lazy obese people is great enough that the generalization should not be made. I know as many lazy skinny people as I do skinny obese people.

And it's not that health is not a priority for me. In fact, my health is very high on my list of priorities. My obesity, however, is currently something outside my ability to change. I'm doing what I can, and that's not working. But is it a priority? Heck yeah.

Oops! "I know as many lazy skinny people as I do skinny obese people," should really be, "I know as many lazy skinny people as I do lazy obese people." Skinny obese would be quite the oxymoron! ;)

It's easy to eat more simple carbs and sugars when eating on a restricted budget--that's nothing new. 10 for a dollar ramen noodles and 4 for a dollar mac and cheeses are almost urban legend they're so culturally accepted. Milk and dairy are government subsidized food items--not vegetables and legumes!

I agree with the socio-economic issues at work here and with the fact that if you place a value on your health, you will just make it a priority. I think the food at Whole Foods is better quality than at conventional groceries stores: and I know this to be true here. I know there are some things not worth the money going organic for like potatoes, but when I stopped at a conventional grocery store late one night after a long bike ride to get some potatoes (because well why bother with organic and the price WAS cheaper): 2 out of the 4 had huge rotten spots in them and I had to cut out so much of the potatoes we only had half as much soup. I might as well have paid twice as much.

But really I think it's because WF's prices are reflective of the quality and the real cost of the food we eat. The prices at other groceries stores are cheaper and don't accurately reflect the price of the foods - either because it's not as good as what you really might want or because it's subsidized through government programs and is cheaper to produce (like corn products and all the processed foods that use them...), etc. The lower prices trick people into thinking that food is cheap and they buy too much and consumer too much and a lot of times don't realize they are doing so. The result is poor health and obesity and all the problems they cause. So, in the event that everyone started out with equal money and equal ability to be healthy those people who have poorer diets will end up less healthy - and spend more money on healthcare/less time working than those who have good diets and are in good health.
Maybe not being "skinny" (being too thin is a health problem as well) but definitely not being obese could in time save you money. Being obese will cost you more money and could take a middle class family to somewhere lower on the economic spectrum. I think it's kind of a vicious cycle.

There are so many prejudices and assumptions at work it boggles the mind. "Laziness." "Inability to prioritize." It is entirely clear that people make really far-reaching assumptions about people based on their physical size. I agree most with Trish 1980 and offer this for pondering--in fact, most of the extremely overweight people I know are the OPPOSITE of lazy--raising families, working extremely hard at their jobs [plural], doing lots of uncompensated community service, putting in extra unpaid hours. I agreee that not being skinny is not a priority for them--they don't carve out time for yogalates and spending hours choosing artisinal bok choy. But please remove any suggestion of laziness from the discourse. If anything, the people who are willing to spend hours pondering every calorie, reading tome after tome about mazimizing life span through particular combinations of foods, and yes, commenting on AT posts, are narcissists.

I've seen prostitutes who are incredibly skinny. And drug dealers. My mother is a bit overweight, lives on vegetables and home-cooked meals with healthy meats, gardens every day--and will out-live most of us.

Examine your assumptions. Is that person lazy--or that person the hardest working person you know? Stop attributing qualities to people based on their appearance. You don't know what that person goes home to. A larger than average person could be a well-educated, HARD-WORKING person who goes home to such a wacky home life and has NO TIME to exercise. But is that person kind? Funny? Smart? Thoughtful? Meanwhile, I see LOTS of skinny people with foul mouths and fouler opinions.

Check your logic. The coincidence and good luck that a natural foods grocer is in your neighborhood is NOT a priority that you have set. That would be like me saying that I set a priority that Ann Taylor would open a store near me and that is why I am so well-dressed. That is called fantastical thinking.
***
I agree--every dollar you spend is a vote. But the ballot boxes have already been STUFFED, and the election tampered with (by Big Agribusiness, Big Petroleum, and the US Govt).

Trish -- ME TOO! I have chronic disseminated Lyme and have gained over 60 lbs. It's embarrassing, really, since I have a degree in nutrition and feel I'm not a good representation of my field. But, what can I do? All of my food is cooked from scratch, most of it local or organic. I know what to eat, and how much to eat. Fatigue and joint pain make a large contribution to not being able to exercise much.

Lyme can disrupt your whole endocrine system. For me, it kicked me into a horrible cycle of estrogen dominance which causes a lot of weight gain which is seemingly impossible to reverse. We've seen it happen with a lot of women. Read up on it, you might have some of that going on. Uzzi Reiss has an excellent book which explains it really well (Natural Hormone Balance for Women).

I work with chronic Lyme patients. If you ever want to talk, or if there's anything I can help you with, or you just want to commiserate, drop me a line: jen [at] supernaturalnutrition [dot] n e t

On my own skin: my shopping vs my boyfriend's shopping...
Same grocery store, largely different bills.

I buy fruit and vegetables and higher-quality products, he buys cheap junk. We're currently in an incredible saving crunch to achieve some objectives and, often, in order to shop well, we're often broke.

When money runs out, I don't have supper. He goes to McDonald's. I prefer to fast than to eat that stuff.

There you have it. It's not the supermarket, it's the choices you make in it.

Everyone that says "I eat right and exercise but can't loose weight" is lying to themselves. I have always been underweight. After college I put on about 10 pounds because I was eating large portions or terrible foods and was not really active. I kept thinking, what is going on, I am eating normal amounts of foods, why am I gaining weight? I talked to a friend about this and he told me "You're not eating fat air, you must be doing something wrong". I really took this to heart and realized he was right- I must be eating too much. Lo and behold I monitored my calories and turns out I was eating about 500 too many a day for my activity. I lowered my calories and started exercising and I've dropped 9 pounds in 8 weeks.

"I've seen prostitutes who are incredibly skinny" This is really a different discussion. Prostitution and chronic drug use frequently go hand in hand in a vicious cycle. The use of crack of meth -- both cheap and widely abused -- lead to weight loss. The issues of prostitution and drug use are certainly related to issues of poverty, but maybe we don't want to go opening another can of worms on this blog ;)

The fact is that there is no single cause to which we can attribute America's obesity epidemic.

For some, it is a matter of genetics and health conditions. A friend of mine is afflicted with a condition in which fat concentrates around her belly. There is a simple medication for it, but she's allergic to it, so there is nothing else she can do about it. Another friend suffers from seizures and can only safely be active at certain times of the day.

For some, the collective mass effects of poverty lead to obesity. Read my link above about Chicago's "food deserts" -- areas in which people can only do their grocery shopping at convenience stores that don't stock healthy items. Working long shifts and multiple jobs leaves no time for exercise or proper rest, much less taking slow public transportation to a distant grocery store. For these people, government incentives for full service grocery stores to open in their areas would make a lasting difference.

For some, though, laziness is a factor. I think for more, though, that despair in the guise of laziness is the real factor. They feel that there is little they can do, and so they feign apathy and, as the saying goes, eat their feelings. These are the people for whom support and education go a long way. They can safely lose the weight, but need the support of their friends and family and guidance about nutrition and exercise. I think we all root for these people (I know that the Biggest Loser makes me tear up).

And then there are those who suffer not from obesity, but from societal misunderstanding of differing body sizes and shapes. For example, at my size and frame, I would be drastically overweight at a size 10, but for friends, this is exactly where they should be and they look great. The terribly sad thing is that they don't understand that they are healthy and beautiful, and they often fixate and dish on what size of clothing other people wear.

Each idea -- from Jamie Oliver's school lunches to "Let's Move" -- won't help everyone, but it will help someone.

Limegreenie -- "Everyone that says "I eat right and exercise but can't loose weight" is lying to themselves."

This statement is patently false.

Yes, if you're eating kcal more than you use, yes, calorie restriction will work. But this only works for some people, and only goes so far.

For the rest of us, that doesn't work. It can be many things, commonly food allergies causing much water weight, or endocrine imbalance. Thyroid accounts for 50% of your metabolic rate. Some people, based on their genetic background, don't make enough or their bodies are stuck in "survival" mode and their thyroid is downregulated, lowering metabolic rate. There's adrenal balance -- if you're stressed out you have a higher level of cortisol which contributes to insulin resistance and fat storage. For women, there's a HUGE hormonal component. Estrogen favors fat deposition, and estrogen dominance is very common in our country. Worse, fat cells secrete estrogen, so the more body fat you accumulate, the more estrogen you have -- it's a terrible cycle. With this condition, it's entirely possible to eat fewer calories than you use, yet still not lose weight. How? RQ values. RQ values measure your O2 vs CO2. When ths number is high, you are burning more carbs for fuel. When this number is low, you're burning more protein or fat. Ideally, in a fasted rested state at least 50% of your calorie needs come from fat. However, when one is estrogen dominant -- and remember estrogen favors fat deposition -- your body pulls calories from stored carbs (glycogen) instead of fat, which is seen as a higher RQ value. The result? Fat tends to accumulate, and is never taken from storage. The solution? First, progesterone to balance out the unopposed estrogen, and then a ketogeniac diet (Atkins, South Beach, etc) to kick the body back into fat burning. Once this is reset, than carbs may be increased back to a normal amount.

Additionally, there are other hormones that play a role like insulin, leptin, adiponectin, testosterone, etc.

Weight management is an extremely complicated field. Calories in, calories out works for some, and is certainly the best place to start, but it's not the whole story.

I shop at Whole Foods 99% of the time for a variety of reasons: I am vegan and WF is VERY vegan-friendly, I believe in eating organic and I believe in sustaining small farms.

@limegreenie: Yes, your statement is false. Your weight gain and loss has nothing to do with obesity. Your weight gain and loss fall within the normal range. Obesity is when your body is 30 percent fat, or when your weight is very far out of normal range, like me, at 245 lbs. when I should be, and once was, 170. I've lost a large amount of weight before. I STARTED at 299, and got down to 170. After being sick for eight years, I went back up to 245. I know EXACTLY how to lose weight. I know how to eat right, count calories, exercise, build muscle, yadda, yadda. When there are mitigating factors like chronic illness, hormone imbalance, etc., you can't just change your caloric intake and expect change.

@akay: "For some, though, laziness is a factor." You're right. I'm just not saying it's the only factor, and that for many, it's not even a factor. I guess I'm just reacting from years of experience of people assuming I'm lazy when I'm clearly the opposite.

I'd love to see more studied on any linkage between obesity and laziness, actually. Is laziness strictly a cause or more an correlative? Is it always that folks have lazy tendencies and thereby become obese, or do they develop laziness (or the appearance thereof) because something is chemically wrong with their body, and thus they are tired, which results in obesity or perhaps which develops concurrently with obesity? I wonder because I know a family where many of the family members are type II diabetic. Those who are diabetic are mostly obese. A number developed the diabetes and became obese, which then made them tired, exhausted, and become somewhat lazy, or have the appearance of being lazy -- i.e. the obesity came before the laziness.

Score for Whole Foods! I'm sure they love yet another implication that their food is the healthiest out there. It's not. I bet nearly 50% by volume of the produce they sell is NOT organic... but 0% of their prices reflect that.

I think this article points out that yuppies (amongst whom I count myself) like to shop at Whole Foods... and that's all.

If you believe you can't buy crap at Whole Foods, you're wrong. You have to educate yourself about food and read labels as much at WF as anywhere else.

I just don't buy it. I actually have a chronic, debilitating illness myself. If someone works hard enough, they can lose weight. I don't disagree it isn't harder for some than others, but it can be done.

Whole Foods doesn't sell totinos party pizzas and hot pockets. It's pretty easy to figure out. It's not impossible to buy unhealthy food at WF but it's certainly harder than at a standard grocery store.

Orchid64--THANK YOU for saying this: "The middle class can quibble all they like, but you can't know what it's like to work in a soul-numbing job week-in and week-out to barely keep your head above water financially. It's crushing to the psyche and doesn't inspire you to get out and take a walk, job, or whatever. All such people want to do is get home and lose themselves in something easy and passive (like T.V.)."

I thought if bore repeating. While not classed as poor, thanks to my husband's gov't job, I work a menial, life denying job for very little pay in order to keep us in health benefits...and count myself damn lucky to have them. We're close enough to poor that the benefits offered by his job would leave us strapped, even if I doubled my current paycheck! It's hard to be an intelligent, college educated person stuck telling people how to read a tag and find the stairs for 8 hours a day while standing on a concrete floor. Even my young and thin co-workers often limp out at the end of the night...forget going jogging; we just want to not be in pain leaving work!

I do cook good, healthy natural food (though we fall back on scrambled eggs and fruit more than I'd like), but it takes immense amounts of planning to be sure I have the chance to opt out of quick prepared food. I know that I couldn't manage it if I'd had less education about food at home growing up (thanks mom and grandma) and less incentive to maintain our health (diabetic husband). I have to say though, it hasn't kept the weight off. Being in too much pain to stand at the end of the night means no exercise for me...and the pounds creap on. If I had the money, I'd join the local pool and get my exercise swimming. But to get the money means we'd be eating junk again. Tough trade off, yes?

Thanks for your honest words. And may they do some good in changing a few perceptions.

I'm with watchmespin on this one. Whole Foods IS about status more than it is about healthy food. People who tend to be interested in status enough to be willing to pay triple for a product they could get cheaply at the "normal" market are also likely to be focused on a leaner appearance, since that is another mark of status (in that obesity lowers one's status as it is frowned upon in this society).

I don't think low-income people are really as inclined toward overly processed foods as pop culture wants us to believe (excepting people who receive food stamps; in many areas if food stamps aren't used up each month benefits can be reduced or lost and that promotes the purchase of processed foods). The simple reality is that people with truly low incomes can't AFFORD processed foods. Why spend $5-10 on one meal's worth of processed food when you can have a week's worth of real food? I live with an incredibly small food budget, and while I will acknowledge that on occasion, processed food is tempting due to its convenience, it's simply not affordable. What IS affordable is real food with nutritional value. Those foods tend to be less expensive in the grocery store than the processed ones if you're not fixated on organic, organic, organic.

Having grown up in Australia and now living in Chicago, I must say it's very interesting to see what companies are allowed to sell customers, or rather how the US government doesn't seem to care about the health of it's citizens and more about how much money large companies make. In other words, companies are allowed to sell milk / cheese with chemicals like Bovine Growth Hormone, where it's banned in all other developed countries as it's believed to cause cancer.

I think that the proliferation of companies like Whole Foods is partly due to the fact that people are starting to realize that the food sold in the average store could actually cause cancer / or kill you. Why not choose organic when it really doesn't cost that much more? Unless you're struggling to survive I think you're pretty crazy to consuming cancer milk and cheese!

F-_k my grammer in the last sentence is shocking.

Why do I feel like thekitchn is trying really hard to promote Whole Foods?

Please stop!

I don't feel like this is a PRO-WHOLEFOODS post. WF is just the most well known face of the gourmet natural/organic market industry. Like Starbucks for coffee, right? So, I don't necessarily think AT and TheKitchn are coming into this with the angle of promoting Whole Foods as the only choice.

Now, with regards to the article itself. I HAVE made the choice between bills and healthful food before. Food wins. Has my credit been affected during the recession because of this? Definetly yes. Happily, my health hasn't. I shop the sales at Whole Foods, I choose organic on the most important things, I shop farmers markets as often as possible (which can be more expensive than you think), and feed my dog a diet that is also extremely healthy. If my health suffers the rest of my life does. If my finances suffer, atleast I have my health.

I bought in an "up and coming neighborhood" several years ago. I had a good job and found a good deal, then I was laid off. The recession has proved to kick my own ass and that of many of my friends. I no longer collect unemployment, I am, by all charts and economic graphs, in the population segment that can only be described as living in poverty. Most of my new neighborhood has been living like this for years. A largely immigrant and illegal alien community, the stores are stocked with cheap HFCS/wheat/corn laden treats/foods. I have stopped shopping at my local grocery store because things are constantly out of date or spoiled. There is no emphasis on health when the fresh/unprocessed section is less than 10% of the geograpy of the store. Is there an obesity issue here? Yes. If the foods aren't available, they won't buy it. Interesting side note, I often pay more for healthy versions of things at the "regular grocery store" than I do at Whole Foods.

As far as it only being hipsters or yuppies shopping at WF, spend a weekend day there, or a week night. The staff and customers are some of the most diverse I have scene. The reason many people choose WF is simple... accessability. I can go to WF and get everything I need, paying more for some things and far less for others. I can know that the staff cares about the quality, and the products are not out of date, the produce not rotten, and I can also know that the staff has been educated to deal with food sensitivities. As someone with a food intolerance, Whole Foods makes sense as a reliable source for the things I need. Otherwise I need to shop at 5 stores, spending more time and ultimatley more money in the long run getting too and from these places.

I know that I have rambled a bit... I guess I just get really annoyed with being called prententious, a yuppy or a hipster , all with unattractive insulting tones, because I choose to know the animals I am eating were well cared for, the packaged goods free of allergens that affect me negatively, the staff treated well, & the items being sold fresh and in stock. I was an obese youngster, my parents and siblings are still well within the obese realms. I make less money than them, and they make very little, but our choices vary widely. I am now far more slender than I was growing up.

So, is this a socio-economic issue? Weight? Yes. When you have documented proof that grocery stores in outlying, lower income neighborhoods raise the prices on stables such as fresh produce, milk, cheese and eggs, because their consumers can not make a choice such as someone with higher income or resources, living in a neighborhood with many more options. However, it is a falisy to think that healthy must mean more expenxive. I stated briefly above, there are many things at my local store that are far pricier than the local WF. The key is to shop sales and shop wisely.

OH and to seidhr...

Please, come to my neighborhood and watch what people put in their carts. YOU may choose nutritional value over dollar cost, but many of my neighbors are NOT. They are shopping dollars for calories, not dollars for nutritional value.

I spend a huge percentage of my income on food. I don't have TV, I use my neighbour's internet, and I buy grassfed beef. That's a choice I make, because my health is important to me. A gym membership is completely unnecessary in order to remain fit.

And I don't think anybody has pointed out something pretty obvious-- in America, food costs a HELLUVA lot less than in other countries. I think I read spomewhere that people in France pay three times more than what we pay for food. When I buy more expensive food, I eat less of it. Period. There's no way I can afford to indulge in an 8-oz steak-- my husband and I share a 6-oz steak. When something costs more, and has more nutrients packed into it, you're just not as likely to eat an enormous portion of it-- you pay attention to what you're eating, because it cost a lot, and then you find that you're full sooner, because you've been chewing slowly and enjoying it instead of using it to fill a hole.

I truly believe that it's a rearrangement of priorities. When I'm completely bone tired after a long day, coming home to cook something fresh and delicious is one of the things I look forward to, and often spend a lot of my commute planning. If I'm too tired to cook, then I either eat something quick (like frozen leftovers), or just go to bed. It wouldn't even cross my mind to eat candy or fast food-- that, in my opinion, is tantamount to poisoning myself.

I am on the lower end of the wealth scale...plus a single mom, and I shop at our whole foods equivalent. Not for every trip, but every other or third trip is it the natural foods store. I stock up on stuff it's harder to find at the regular grocery and bulk stuff (and stuff that's on sale).

Speaking of the sale stuff, the usual things on sale at the regular store aren't the healthiest. With the possible exception of 10 for $10 produce or some random "healthy" item, most sale items are sodium/partially hydrogenated/HFCS-packed convenience food.

I'm still a bit overweight (what can I say, I love sweets...doesn't matter if you use agave, honey, or organic sugar it will still make you fat...), but I make healthy choices the majority of the time, and make most of my junk food myself. I think that people that shop at Whole Foods are more into a real food approach and think about what they put into their bodies. That being said, Kroger has most of the same packaged and dairy stuff in their "organic" section. Maybe the rest of America will eventually catch on....