In the same week I read one headline where Oklahoma is ranked 6th in the Nation for obesity with 1/3 of adults being obese - later I read another headline where Oklahoma ranks the 6th hungriest state in the nation (meaning people in Oklahoma are uncertain where their next meal will come from).

Is there a common thread to these contrasting extremes?

If I had to guess, I'd say poverty.

I don't remember what thread it was but this was discussed awhile back and got fairly heated. One thing that came out was differences in how hunger was defined. Some studies defined it as malnuitrician and others as actual lack of food. Other studies were a little more vague and you had to dig to see that when they used the term hunger, it had to do with malnuitrician. In my opinion, the only people going hungry in this country, besides perhaps an ill elderly person that no one knows about, would be children whose parents aren't feeding them either because they are stoned, just bad parents or mentally ill. Someone fix my spelling.

I don't see where poverty is a leading contributor to our obesity issue (unless you're linking poverty to lack of education). It certainly impacts our 'hunger' issue but even there I am skeptical in our urban areas.

I agree that at least in my experience, for the most part, those that go hungry on a regular basis in our state are children of irresponsible parents or adults without the mental capacity to take care of themselves.

I don't see where poverty is a leading contributor to our obesity issue (unless you're linking poverty to lack of education). It certainly impacts our 'hunger' issue but even there I am skeptical in our urban areas.

I agree that at least in my experience, for the most part, those that go hungry on a regular basis in our state are children of irresponsible parents or adults without the mental capacity to take care of themselves.

I think poverty has a lot to do with obesity, rather on government assistance or living on a very limited income, they buy food items of quantity and not substance. (processed meats instead of cut meats, canned fruits and vegetables instead of fresh, etc;)

I think poverty has a lot to do with obesity, rather on government assistance or living on a very limited income, they buy food items of quantity and not substance. (processed meats instead of cut meats, canned fruits and vegetables instead of fresh, etc;)

I think I see your view, I just don't know if I agree with it. While in many cases food that is bad for you is cheaper, that doesn't mean its your only choice or even that there are not equivalent good foods for the same price. Also, I've been to Wheeler's Meat Market many times and watched people with food cards buying cuts of meat I don't even buy myself. Not to mention the hoards of people I stand behind at 7-11 that use food cards to buy Ding-Dongs, soda pop, candy bars, etc.

I think it has more to do with education and personal decision making skills (often passed down from parents). Our monthly grocery bill is low for a family of three. We use coupons when I think about it and we refuse to buy junk food. According to my Quick Books we averaged $217 month last year on grocery items and it looks like we averaged another $89 a month eating out.

Again, I think it has more to do with a person's choice to eat larger quantities of bad food.

As for the hunger issue.... I would again have to lean towards bad decision making skills. I know that if you live in the city, you have easy access to food cards, free hot/cold meals, food pantries and programs life the Angel Food ministries. I can't speak for rural areas.

There can be many reasons for obesity in this country but there is no reason for hunger. There are more government programs and charitable organizations that provide food for the poor than you can shake a stick at.

Now, the most difficult group of poor - the rural poor - can still qualify for food stamps and free school meal programs. So, to PQ's point, I wager that most anyone who is "hungry" today is really just malnourished or is a child who has parents who do not have the wherewithall to properly feed and maintain their children (ie. mentally ill or challenged, substance addicted, etc). Go to any convenience store and see how many people fill a basket with junk food from them instead of going to the grocery store and getting proper foods.

Bottom line, if you're of such a mentality to fill up on a large bag of Doritos and a Big Gulp or a Big Mac instead of a balanced meal, you're going to become obese. If you're going to spend your food stamps at 7/11 or Circle K instead of Homeland, you're going to become obese. If you're going to eat large portions of food and not exercise, you're going to become obese. Most obese states are in the south where it's extremely hot. The weather simply isn't conducive to going out and riding a bike or hiking in the forest when its 95 with 95% humidity. Southern states also don't have urbanized cities where walking is the norm rather than taking a car from door to door.

I have seen evidence to support both arguments. Just visit any Wal-Mart Supercenter or Crest on the 1st and 15th of the month at 12:01 AM. The wife and I stopped in at two seperate stores on June 30/July 1 just after midnight. We were just going in to pick up milk and eggs for breakfast in the morning. You would have thought it was the end of the world going on in both stores we stopped at. People were lined up with two to three baskets a piece stacked to the sky. I did not see any of the baskets with any trace of healthy food other than expensive meats. There was more frozen foods, processed foods and junk food in those baskets than anything else. I saw so much food in those baskets that it made me wonder if they are actually eating all of that. Half of what I saw in one of those baskets would have fed me for a couple of months. It made me wonder how much of it is going to waste or is it being re-sold for profit.

I think it's funny how Michelle Obama beats the drum of healthy eating to those of us who pay our own food bills. Yet she remains silent on the Food Stamp program. I think the government could strike a death blow to the obesity epidemic if they were to require people on Food Stamps to attend meal planning classes, participate in physical fitness programs and be required to purchase certain food items and have a limit on fattening foods.

They could make a landslide amount of progress if they started with those on public assitance. Complete ignoring that crowd will do nothing but create more of a burden on our healthcare and public assistance programs.

I have seen evidence to support both arguments. Just visit any Wal-Mart Supercenter or Crest on the 1st and 15th of the month at 12:01 AM. The wife and I stopped in at two seperate stores on June 30/July 1 just after midnight. We were just going in to pick up milk and eggs for breakfast in the morning. You would have thought it was the end of the world going on in both stores we stopped at. People were lined up with two to three baskets a piece stacked to the sky. I did not see any of the baskets with any trace of healthy food other than expensive meats. There was more frozen foods, processed foods and junk food in those baskets than anything else. I saw so much food in those baskets that it made me wonder if they are actually eating all of that. Half of what I saw in one of those baskets would have fed me for a couple of months. It made me wonder how much of it is going to waste or is it being re-sold for profit.

I think it's funny how Michelle Obama beats the drum of healthy eating to those of us who pay our own food bills. Yet she remains silent on the Food Stamp program. I think the government could strike a death blow to the obesity epidemic if they were to require people on Food Stamps to attend meal planning classes, participate in physical fitness programs and be required to purchase certain food items and have a limit on fattening foods.

They could make a landslide amount of progress if they started with those on public assitance. Complete ignoring that crowd will do nothing but create more of a burden on our healthcare and public assistance programs.

Hey, this liberal administration is more than happy to tell us what food we can and can't buy with our own money but, as you say, they won't utter a word about limits on what Food Stamps can be used to buy. Shhhhhh, that might be (gulp) racist....

You wouldn't see me utter hardly a word of criticism about food stamp programs if they would categorize foods and only allow nutritious foods to be bought with my tax dollars. You can even have your t-bone steak as long as you can't have your Twinkies and soda pop. My only other gripe I guess might be how easily people qualify for food stamps and then apply the savings on their wallet to cigarettes and other none-essentials. I got into an argument with a guy I know the other day because he won't marry the woman who he has 4 kids with because it would adversely effect all the benefits they get in food stamps and tax refunds, etc. He has no shame in whipping out his food stamp card at 7-11 while putting gas into his Tahoe.

You wouldn't see me utter hardly a word of criticism about food stamp programs if they would categorize foods and only allow nutritious foods to be bought with my tax dollars. You can even have your t-bone steak as long as you can't have your Twinkies and soda pop. My only other gripe I guess might be how easily people qualify for food stamps and then apply the savings on their wallet to cigarettes and other none-essentials. I got into an argument with a guy I know the other day because he won't marry the woman who he has 4 kids with because it would adversely effect all the benefits they get in food stamps and tax refunds, etc. He has no shame in whipping out his food stamp card at 7-11 while putting gas into his Tahoe.

:bright_id

So what? A lot of productive people would gripe if poor people got benefits like food stamps and tax refunds as a result of marrying.

So what? A lot of productive people would gripe if poor people got benefits like food stamps and tax refunds as a result of marrying.

Who would, Bunty?

Still the same productive people who gripe about people being on welfare. Or to name a name, Kerry.

Still the same productive people who gripe about people being on welfare. Or to name a name, Kerry.

I personally have no problem with public assitance programs. They help many people that are truly in dire straits and have no ablity to change their situation. I am frustrated by the gross exploitation that is out there in plain sight and federal government does nothing to change it out of fear of losing a few votes.

It angers me when I see someone under 30, that is able bodied with three kids in tow and not an ounce of healthy food is in the shopping cart. Then top it off they whip out the access card and load the groceries into a late model SUV.

I am not saying turn people away and make them starve. I just think that is one area that needs to be heavy regulated to make sure the program is not abused. The goal should be to graduate people to independent living and responsible spending to where they never need to be on public assitance again ever.

The only people that should be permitted to be on public assitance on a permanent basis are the elderly and the physically/mentally disabled.

I personally have no problem with public assitance programs. They help many people that are truly in dire straits and have no ablity to change their situation. I am frustrated by the gross exploitation that is out there in plain sight and federal government does nothing to change it out of fear of losing a few votes.

It angers me when I see someone under 30, that is able bodied with three kids in tow and not an ounce of healthy food is in the shopping cart. Then top it off they whip out the access card and load the groceries into a late model SUV.

I am not saying turn people away and make them starve. I just think that is one area that their needs to be heavy regulated to make sure the program is not abused. The goal should be to graduate people to independent living and responsible spending to where they never need to be on public assitance again ever.

The only people that should be permitted to be on public assitance on a permanent basis are the elderly and the physically and mentally disabled.

There you go. But the temporary basis is also a mess and it is federal, in large part. I used to constantly have parents getting TANF because their boyfriend suddenly went to jail and they were left with kids to feed, no job, no skills. They'd usually been living on his theivery/drug dealing before he got popped. As far as I am concerned, paying the bills to keep children in that lifestyle does them no favors. Perhaps if more moms faced the prospect that they might lose their kids if they couldn't afford them they might make better decisions about learning to support them or not bring so many children into the world.

I know many who support the idea of a return of orphanages. Then again warehousing children is not really the best solution because you would see many ran like the nursing homes that are frequently in the news for fraud and abuse of their residents.

I know many who support the idea of a return of orphanages. Then again warehousing children is not really the best solution because you would see many ran like the nursing homes that are frequently in the news for fraud and abuse of their residents.

The shortage of good foster families make it hard to find a good fit for many children. I have seen some tremendous matches that even progress towards adoption. On the other hand, some of the harder to place children, including ones in gradeschool or middle school, frequently bop from one place to another. All too often, a lot of them end up placed with foster families that are, frankly, doing it for the money. They might have 8 kids in their home and it might as well be an orphanage - and many of the foster families are not trained to deal with the kinds of problems many of the kids have.

I worry about abuse of kids in an orphanage but at the same time, I have had some of my guardian ad litem kids sexually and physically abused in foster homes with far less oversight to keep it from happening.

If the kids are at an orphanage (as awful as that sounds) at least they aren't being swapped around having to change from one school to another, new neighborhoods, etc. There are pros and cons. I wouldn't want to put delinquents in with the abused kids but I suspect you'd see that happen because it would just be so easy and economical to put them all under one roof.

One thing that used to make me positively nuts is that they would take children who had a history of being sexual predators and place them in foster homes with small children (even daycares). On a number of occasions, I had my guardian ad litem children removed from a foster home with small children to take them out of a situation where they could offend and end up in the juvenile justice system. Invariable, the foster parents WEREN'T EVEN ADVISED OF THE CHILD'S PREDATORY SEXUAL BEHAVIOR prior to being placed in the homes - and some of them had made it a condition of being a foster parent that no such children would be placed there.