zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
> “The data show clear changes in food spending following adoption,” Hristakeva said. “After discontinuation, the effects become smaller and harder to distinguish from pre-adoption spending patterns.”

It's interesting that overall spending doesn't decrease that much in the end, although shifting from snacks to fruit is the kind of change health advocates have always wanted?

>>nemoma+j4
Around here fruit is significantly more expensive than snacks. In fact, replacing the snacks with healthy food in our case increased spending. So it is awesome that these households managed to cut spendings.

>>spockz+Y5
> fruit is significantly more expensive than snacks

This is a commonly repeated claim but it's usually not true. Fruit is, in fact, pretty cheap:

In the US, bananas average $1.68/kilo: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings...

A kilo is usually ~6 bananas. So a banana costs maybe 28c on average. Find a cost-competitive ultra-processed snack for the calories and satiety that a banana provides. Healthy eating might not is cheap but junk food, specifically, is not usually a cost optimisation.

>>calpat+vb
This leaves out spoilage. Fruit is a pain in the ass to get enough of without running out before the next shopping trip or having it rot.

I think a lot of people that say quickly perishable items are cheap shop every few days and buy in small quantities.

>>pixl97+Kv2
Yes, that’s how you should live if you want to be healthy. If the place where you live doesn’t allow that, then you’re sacrificing your health to live there.

That’s your choice at the end of the day, but don’t make excuses for why you choose to eat garbage all day.

>>amroch+vH2
Being able to just up and move to a place that makes it more viable to grocery shop multiple times a week involves a certain level of affluence that a lot of people don't have.

It is not a generalizable answer to this problem.

>>cthalu+zR2
Reality doesn’t care about whether it’s generalizable or not, it only cares about the truth. And the truth is that your suburbs are killing you.

>>amroch+MM3
Reality also doesn't care about an answer if it is impractical for a huge number of people. There are a variety of different answers to the problem and you pick the ones that are applicable to you and work from there

Telling someone who can't afford to move to the city that they just need to move the city to solve their health problem is a waste of time for you and them.

>>cthalu+CS3
The answer applicable to individuals is to leave the suburbs and move to a city.

The answer applicable to the government is to build better cities.

The answer is never stay in the suburbs but take drugs the rest of your life and spend the end of your life miserably unhealthy. You’re free to do that if you want to, you just can’t pretend it’s healthy.

>>amroch+rR5
Ya, if you look at the propaganda being thrown around today '15 minute cities' are a communist trap meant to imprison you... don't expect change in the US.