Will the USA get another round of stimulus checks passed before the election?

How about eating no food at all for a bit? It's the cheapest option - free! - and great for weight loss.

An overweight body is sustained by the over consumption of calories every day.

Eating less calories is cheaper.

Eating more costs more money and is worse for the environment.

It is possible to get healthy food at a low cost.

But unhealthy food tastes better and/or is more convenient due to less prep. 

I saw a TV show about how many calories overweight people eat per day. It's A LOT.

for god sake will you just give it a ****** rest

How about eating no food at all for a bit? It's the cheapest option - free! - and great for weight loss.

An overweight body is sustained by the over consumption of calories every day.

Eating less calories is cheaper.

Eating more costs more money and is worse for the environment.

It is possible to get healthy food at a low cost.

But unhealthy food tastes better and/or is more convenient due to less prep. 

I saw a TV show about how many calories overweight people eat per day. It's A LOT.

Is this a modest proposal or are you for real?

I'm being serious. Fasting improves blood markers. Reduces the risk of cancer. Reverses diabetes.

Is this a modest proposal or are you for real?

Well what he says is NOT real, but he REALLY believes it.

along with unicorns, John Stossel and Jeff Bezos is good for the world. 

Is this a modest proposal or are you for real?

Just in case any of you illiterates missed the allusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
 

It is possible to get healthy food at a low cost.

It isn't possible for everyone. Other human experiences exist outside your own

thanks for that kyndo, i'm still learning how to read_{no but really thanks for that, it was a dope reference but it went right over my head} 

The healthiest diets cost about $1.50 more per day than the least healthy diets, according to new research from Harvard School of Public Health.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-vs-unhealthy-diet-costs-1-50-more/

A dollar a day isn't that much money. Not an insurmountable amount to get. $1.00 can make big progress; $1.50 can take one all the way from least healthy to most healthy.

But this was comparing equal calorie amounts. Which is more costly: 2,000 calories a day of healthy food or 5,000 calories a day of junk food? It's the latter for sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

Capitalism works through supply and demand. Customers don't want healthy food, rather preferring junk food, and that's what the stores will stock. We need more education about nutrition for poorer folk, and Americans in general.

The healthiest diets cost about $1.50 more per day than the least healthy diets, according to new research from Harvard School of Public Health.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-vs-unhealthy-diet-costs-1-50-more/

A dollar a day isn't that much money. Not an insurmountable amount to get. $1.00 can make big progress; $1.50 can take one all the way from least healthy to most healthy.

But this was comparing equal calorie amounts. Which is more costly: 2,000 calories a day of healthy food or 5,000 calories a day of junk food? It's the latter for sure.

To address this question, the HSPH researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 27 existing studies from 10 high-income countries

Capitalism works through supply and demand. Customers don't want healthy food, rather preferring junk food, and that's what the stores will stock. We need more education about nutrition for poorer folk, and Americans in general.

You would know this is wrong if you'd actually bothered to read the article.

Food deserts tend to be inhabited by low-income residents with reduced mobility; this makes them a less attractive market for large supermarket chains.

Capitalism works through supply and demand. Customers don't want healthy food, rather preferring junk food, and that's what the stores will stock. We need more education about nutrition for poorer folk, and Americans in general.

You're not wrong. Education is key to understanding the long term impacts of shovelling crap into your body.
 ...Buuuuuuut there are also socio-economic factors that play into the North American obesity crisis which you seem intent on downplaying. One's economic status determine things other than just whether one can afford buying the food.

For example, a single mother holding 2 jobs is not going to have the time or energy to prepare nutritious meals. They'll be far more likely to stuff a frozen dinner in the microwave.
   Likewise, supermarkets are few and far between in poor neighbourhoods, and if you don't have a car, hauling 3 bags of produce 500 metres gets old really quick, especially when you can just pop over to the convenience store (which cater to those of low economic status) down the block and load up on delicious poison.

21 million filed unemployment in may 2020, 12 million lost employer issued health insurance.

The long term impacts on employment and housing market will be severe.

You would know this is wrong if you'd actually bothered to read the article.

Food deserts tend to be inhabited by low-income residents with reduced mobility; this makes them a less attractive market for large supermarket chains.

Except that line is not even in the article I posted. _{(Oh, the irony!)} It comes from a leftist Christian magazine, sourced on Wikipedia. What does that even mean? The neighborhood residents have reduced mobility, therefore large supermarket chains don't want to set up shop there? More likely it's because they don't want to robbed, looted, and burned down during Black Lives Matter riots. That's sad for the poor folk living there; I do feel for them.

he REALLY believes it.

along with unicorns, John Stossel and Jeff Bezos is good for the world. 

Whose side should I take in this video: Stossel or Bezos?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJXOQ9fUIdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWB6hGIA9sw

Except that line is not even in the article I posted.

...which wasn't the article I was referring to? And, judging by your response, you seem to have figured that out, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to put this bit of irrelevant snark in here. 

It comes from a leftist Christian magazine, sourced on Wikipedia. What does that even mean? The neighborhood residents have reduced mobility, therefore large supermarket chains don't want to set up shop there?

Yes, good job.

More likely it's because they don't want to robbed, looted, and burned down during Black Lives Matter riots. That's sad for the poor folk living there; I do feel for them.

No.

Except that line is not even in the article I posted. (Oh, the irony!) It comes from a leftist Christian magazine, sourced on Wikipedia.

Maybe this will be more helpful for you, then:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx

You can see how low-income and low-access tracts map directly onto each other.

Or this (using 2010 census data):

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45032/33844_err143_summary.pdf?v=8978.6

In 2010, 29.7 million people, or 9.7 percent of the population, lived in low-income areas (½ kilometer-square grids
where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty thresholds for
family size) more than 1 mile from a supermarket, up from 23.5 million, or 8.4 percent, in 2006.

Or maybe the old conservative position that it's all a question of moral failure is more likely than a complex interplay of geographic, social and economic factors. I pray for an intrepid hero like John Stossel to find out.

The goal of business is to make money. So why not have a store in an area with a lot of people, especially with supposedly many lacking the mobility to go elsewhere? Seems like one could corner the only healthy food around market if people there want healthy food. But business people are too afraid of dying in a shooting? It’s not a matter of people there are unable to afford healthy food (therefore that food doesn’t come) in my opinion. Can anyone explain why big supermarkets aren’t in low income inner city areas? Gotta be a reason.

One contributing factor would be because those poor mobility-lacking people lack mobility because they are poor. Poor people don't buy high profit-margin items. Stores need to maximize profits, which is why the research departments of large franchises pour in an incredible amount of effort to figure out where their target demographics are and aren't.