Yet another article beseeching the slim and disciplined to feel sorry for the unslim and undisciplined.

Where were the obese people in prisoner-of-war camps, refugee camps and concentration camps?

Fact is that even with poor quality food if a person eats less than they need they will take off weight.

Observation shows that there is a problem with obesity and lower socio-economic groups. However saying the problem is just that people don't have enough money is absolving people from acting responsibly. There is oodles of free, useful information available on how to prepare nutritous meals.

A meal for four people at a fast food outlet would cost say $25? My local duopoly supermarket is selling 1.5 kg of chicken drumsticks for $6.42; 620g of minced beef for $6.19; pasta is 64cents for 500g; wholemeal bread is $3.89 for 650g; carrots are 40 cents each; brussel sprouts are 15 cents each; half a cauliflower is $1.48; beans are 71 cents for 100g; a banana costs 48 cents; an apple 44 cents; a kiwifruit 33 cents.

If you are not able to make a nutritous meal for $25 you are not trying.

I exclude remote areas from the above criticism.

With due respect to the above posters I think that perhaps they do not fully comprehend the exact meaning of poverty.Thousands of Australians are doing it tough, penny pinching, and struggling to make ends meet. And yes, there are many in this category who may be seen to be not trying hard enough. The example of the $25 comparative meals is, I suspect, an indictment leveled at such people.

But there are equally thousands of Australians to whom the idea of spending $25 on any one meal is out of the question. To spend that amount on only one meal a day for a fortnight would cost $364. Added to that would be the cost of breakfasts and lunches, not to mention cleaning products, toiletries etc. A Centrelink fortnightly payment of under $500 is clearly inadequate to cover costs in this way. The partners payment goes to fully covering clothes, electricity, medical care, dental care, transport costs, and, looming frighteningly above all, rent.

A $1.00 loaf of cheap white bread with an equally cheap tub of saturated, impure margarine and $1.00 worth of cheap polony, combined with a large "family sized" bottle of sugary, carbonated, Home-brand lolly water fills stomach and gives a full feeling at a little over $5.00. Nothing but empty calories, sugar and fat, sure. But have either of the posters ever had to listen to their kids crying because they are hungry

Romany “a full feeling at a little over $5.00.”

That is the myth and reality is something completely different

I live alone during the week. I do eat out, dinners with business associates etc. last week we did Alfred’s Wine Bar in Southbank, dinner special, including glass of wine, $22 a head and it was very, very good (darn cheap accountants) but I also cook for myself and guess what

One of my favourite meals is a curry

half kg diced lamb or beef $7.00
Can of diced tomatoes $1.00
1 onion $0.20
2 spuds $0.40
Dollop rogan gosh paste $0.50
Rice 250 grams $0.40 (get the larger sacks it is a hell of a lot cheaper)
Heat $0.50

Total $10.00

Four large serves $2.50 a serve

I also do the occasional roast

Joint of whatever $12.00
Variety Fresh Vegies $ 3.00

Total $15.00

Six large Serves $2.50 a serve

If I use kangaroo the joint price drops to about $7.00

Alternatively, my spaghetti bolognaise is special but cheaper with pork mince.
I would guess around $2.00 per serve.

(I recycle the plastic containers which I occasionally get take-away Chinese in and freeze the meals not needed immediately)

Fresh Fruit for desert and the tummy is full and the quality better than the fast-food crap.

The result - “A FULL FEELING FOR ALOT LESS THAN $5.00.” per serve

My point, there is just no helping some people and I am not in the business of defending them from themselves.

No mention of 'exercise' here? Not to dismiss the gist of the article but the poor have always existed. A good proportion of obesity can be attributed to lifestyle choices other than diet.

The article mentions lack of education. I assume this refers to not knowing what is good for you but there are a lot of people who simply don't know how to prepare food for themselves.

As some posters have already pointed out it's possible to get a reasonable diet on limited resources. It mightn't be much fun but what price health?

If all else fails - take a hike. Frequently.

This is a compassionate piece, from well informed authors. Romany understands the problem. The four other comments (so far) have fallen back on simplistic and moralistic explanations, based on the idea that obesity results from gluttony and lack of self discipline - this, despite an awareness in weight loss circles that blaming and self-blame do nothing to help a person lose weight, rather the contrary.

Disadvantage in our society is not the same as in concentration camps. The context is entirely different. These days disadvantage comes primarily from lack of education, and lack of options in life that can lead to people falling victim to unscrupulous marketing campaigns that promise them a more "fulfilling" life.

Once overweight is a problem and a person is diabetic or borderline diabetic, it becomes a self defeating cycle that is hard to break. Fluctuating insulin levels drive appetites for sugary foods that exacerbate the weight problem while the resulting poor health is no friend to the exercise that the critics of the less slender, who have posted here, would apparently order for those less fortunate.

The solutions lie not in victimisation of disadvantaged people but in a population health approach that includes improving opportunities for education across the board, starting in early childhood; and legislates against the unscrupulous sale and advertising of unhealthy foods; while supporting policies that make healthy foods more available and affordable.