TV show- Extreme Cheapskates

heaps of others too



Do share please, always looking for other options.


Maggie
Also, its great to support local supplier, but I believe it will ultimately come down to price, larger supermarket chains will be more competitive.
 
heaps of others too

Would love to hear more recommendations too! Big food fan : )

I have discovered Torre Butchers and I think it's a great spot. Also have been to the Boatshed in Cottesloe ...drool ...wish I lived closer but also pretty $$$

There is a specialist butcher in Osborne Park that does free range pork but I've been a couple of times and my timing must be bad as shelves were virtually bare.

I freely admit I don't know Perth very well yet and am looking forward to discovering more! Would love to hear recommendations of good food shops.

MTR I do agree that supermarkets make most sense from a practicality point of view, but they don't always come out ahead on price, particularly for fresh food. I think fruit and veg can often be better priced in a veg shop and the problem with meat is that many supermarkets limit their supply to the main cuts, so cheaper ones just aren't available. Have to say Australian meat is really good though, and the range is pretty good in most supermarkets. Huge chicken breasts for some reason!! What do you feed them???
 
I should have worded my response better - I was specifically referring to southern Europe and parts of the east, although it would equally apply to northern European countries like the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. The UK is a bit of an outlier in Europe.

No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that you haven't established causation. If urban sprawl is the instigator, why are Britons so overweight? Could it have more to do with culture than urban planning? I.e. the UK is culturally more similar to the US, Australia and the other overweight English speaking countries than it is to mainland Europe - that English speaking countries are all so tubby perhaps is cultural?

Also, many low income people in New York City live in the outer parts of the boroughs which are less connected to public transport and are less walkable than Manhattan, parts of Brooklyn, etc. It's not uncommon for people earning say 100k in Manhattan to not own a car but for someone working in say hospitality in the Bronx to have one because there is not much public transport nearby. We saw this quite a bit when we visited.

The correlation between poverty and obesity is undeniable within English speaking countries. In wealthy suburban areas, people are slimmer on average than in impoverished urban areas. The fact that you can pretend this socioeconomic phenomenon doesn't exist is astounding.

Please show me these studies - I find it extremely hard to believe. People in these countries don't need to go to the gym or do similar activities because they normally live an active lifestyle just by doing their everyday activities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/exercise-countries_n_1683435.html#slide=1242474
 
The correlation between poverty and obesity is undeniable within English speaking countries. In wealthy suburban areas, people are slimmer on average than in impoverished urban areas. The fact that you can pretend this socioeconomic phenomenon doesn't exist is astounding.
I have noticed this in every single Western Society place I have ever been so far in my life..

Basically; the more affluent areas have leaner, healthier looking folk, less likely to smoke and make poor life choices, less gambling issues and so forth.

Lower socio economic areas (and lower education) have fatter folk who tend to smoke more - basically make poorer life choices all round.

It is a definite pattern.

Sorry if that offends. Just my observation.
 
Gotta love the tenants who complain about not having enough money for rent, who complain about health problems, who still have the money for cigarettes.
 
You misunderstand me. I said Italians like their food and don't eat tiny little servings. They are not overweight because, like most people in Europe, they live an active lifestyle. By active I don't mean going to gym regularly but that their lifestyle involves regular, incidental activity because they live in compact, well-planned cities :)

Bingo.

Even surburban areas have well integrated public transport and cycling routes, particulary in northern Europe.

It becomes easier to cycle than to drive. So more people are active.

Cycling in Australia needs to be regained from the lycra clad status symbol seekers and just seen as another mode of transport. Not a challenge or something to boast about. Just a way of getting around that is convenient and low cost.

Having lower levels of urban sprawl helps, but what is more important is not having such an overwhelming reliance on private cars.

I lost 10kgs moving from suburbia to the inner city. I don't drive on weekends, unless we are going somewhere for a day trip. I walk. And when you have a decent level of density, those services that people want to use are in walking or cycling distance. You don't have to get into a hermetically sealed car, set the AC to the same temperature as the outside and then spend the next 20 minutes circling around a car park.
 
No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that you haven't established causation. If urban sprawl is the instigator, why are Britons so overweight? Could it have more to do with culture than urban planning? I.e. the UK is culturally more similar to the US, Australia and the other overweight English speaking countries than it is to mainland Europe - that English speaking countries are all so tubby perhaps is cultural?
No, it's not cultural. Most of the UK outside of the Greater London area and a select few major cities are pretty car-dependent.

Cities by rank: least to most car dependent

1 London
2 Brighton and Hove
3 Nottingham
4 Cambridge
5 Southampton
6 Plymouth
7 Manchester
8 Liverpool
9 Newcastle
10 Bristol
11 Derby
12 Dudley
13 Leicester
14 Swindon
15 Birmingham
16 Sheffield
17 Coventry
18 Sunderland
19 Gateshead
20 Leeds
21 Bradford
22 Luton
23 Milton Keynes
24 Colchester
24 Peterborough
26 Wigan

The correlation between poverty and obesity is undeniable within English speaking countries. In wealthy suburban areas, people are slimmer on average than in impoverished urban areas. The fact that you can pretend this socioeconomic phenomenon doesn't exist is astounding.
This makes no sense at all. Did poor people just come into existence recently? Why were they not obese 20 years ago? There has been a notable increase in obesity that correlates with the continued expansion of the urban growth boundaries in major Australian cities. Rich people are much more likely to live in desireable, walkable, mixed-use areas. Poor people live in whatever's left over.

I don't have the link on me atm, but I came across a study a while back which compared two groups of people and found that even though they consumed a good amount of food, the group that was active put on the least amount of weight. Inactivity contributes more to weight gain than diet. Have you seen some of the popular local cuisine in places like the Netherlands? It doesn't seem to impact their weight too much though as cycling is very popular.

Another exercpt:
The likelihood of obesity in children was found to increase significantly with decreasing levels of household income, lower neighborhood access to parks or sidewalks, increased television viewing time, and increased recreational computer time.

Interesting article. It would have been good to include the entire list rather than snippets though.
 
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/29/1062050654902.html

Obesity is usually blamed on diet or genetics, but now there's something else to blame: where you live.

A national report released today draws a link, for the first time, between people living in areas with the most urban sprawl and the likelihood of being overweight and having high blood pressure.

The reason? It's harder to get daily exercise in sprawling suburbs and urban satellites, where homes are spread out and few destinations are within easy walking or cycling distance.

In compactly built communities, there are more opportunities to walk or cycle to the grocery store, work or school, the report said.

....

The degree of sprawl doesn't affect whether people get exercise in their leisure hours, the study found. People in sprawling and compact areas were equally likely to report they had run, played golf, worked in the garden, or exercised in some way during the past month.

But the kind of physical activity studied in the report looked at "active living", which integrates physical activity into daily routines, such as climbing stairs instead of taking elevators.

The report also studied the degree to which streets formed grids that provided alternate routes. A lack of direct routes discouraged people from walking, the report said.

"The medical community is recognising exercise is not always easy to accomplish when you don't have sidewalks, and the streets are so busy a child can't cross to get bread," said Lee Ronning, president of 1000 Friends of Minnesota, a group working to control sprawl.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Health_and_environmental_impact

Increased obesity[edit]The American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Health Promotion, have both stated that there is a significant connection between sprawl, obesity, and hypertension.[36] Many urbanists argue that this is due to less walking in sprawl-type developments. Living in a car centered culture forces inhabitants to drive everywhere, thus walking far less than their urban (and generally healthier) counterparts.[37]

Decrease in social capital[edit]Urban sprawl may be partly responsible for the decline in social capital in the United States. Compact neighborhoods can foster casual social interactions among neighbors, while sprawl creates barriers. Sprawl tends to replace public spaces with private spaces such as fenced-in backyards.[4]

...

Increased infrastructure costs[edit]Living in larger, more spread out spaces generally makes public services more expensive. Since car usage becomes endemic and public transport often becomes significantly more expensive, city planners are forced to build highway and parking infrastructure, which in turn decreases taxable land and revenue, and decreases the desirability of the area adjacent to such structures. Providing services such as water, sewers, and electricity is also more expensive per household in less dense areas.[38]

Increased personal transportation costs[edit]Residents of low-density areas spend a higher proportion of their income on transportation than residents of high density areas.[39] The RAC estimates that the average cost of operating a car in the UK is ?5,000 a year, most of which stems from financing costs and depreciation.[40] In comparison, a yearly underground ticket for a suburban commuter in London (where the average wage is higher than the national average[41]) costs ?1,000-1,500, which, because of subsidies, do not cover financing for the rail or depreciation of the infrastructure. In the Euro-15, rail transit requires $69 billion euro in subsidies while road transportation nets $107 billion euro in additional taxes.[42]


Neighborhood quality[edit]Critics of sprawl maintain that sprawl erodes quality of life. Duany and Plater-Zyberk believe that in traditional neighborhoods the nearness of the workplace to retail and restaurant space that provides cafes and convenience stores with daytime customers is an essential component to the successful balance of urban life. Furthermore, they state that the closeness of the workplace to homes also gives people the option of walking or riding a bicycle to work or school and that without this kind of interaction between the different components of life the urban pattern quickly falls apart. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 6, 28). James Howard Kunstler has argued that poor aesthetics in suburban environments make them "places not worth caring about", and that they lack a sense of history and identity.


https://theconversation.com/fat-of-the-land-how-urban-design-can-help-curb-obesity-6445

People living in the suburban sprawl walk less, drive more, and spend more time in sedentary pursuits, such as watching television or cruising on the internet, than those living in compact, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods. We need to plan services in new communities so that schools, shops, public transport, and parks arrive at the same time as housing ? so that residents can develop good walking, cycling and public transport habits from the outset.

...

There?s growing evidence that people who drive long distances to work are more likely to gain weight. Reducing commute times would not only be good for the environment, it would also be good for our waistlines ? particularly if it involved walking or cycling to rapid public transport.
 
Overweight people also don't think they are eating very much.
They have no idea what a normal serve actually is.

Obesity problem goes back further than 20 years...more like 30-35 years.

When I was a kid, going to the restaurant was a treat.I could count on both hands the amount of times I went.
I was 12 before I tasted a pizza that wasn't homemade.
I was an adult before I tasted chinese food.

Now, people have too much disposable income.
Eating healthy costs less.
Fresh fruit and veggies are cheap.Eating ones out of season, obviously cost more, but every season allows for lots of variety.
 
I'm not so sure. I'm 28 years old and I can still remember the people in my year level from primary school by name who were overweight - that's how rare and unusual it was. I grew up in a low socio-economic area too.
 
Have you been there? Their large coke at Mcdonalds is a 1.25L bottle oof coke here. Every second advertisement is for some kind of fast food.




Sorry but there is no way people in Australia on average are more obese than the states. If you have been there it's just unfathomable to think that. In Australia I feel like an average sized person, when I go to the states I feel "small". People are just much bigger there. The seats are bigger, bigger sizes in clothes available as well as shoes. They are a big fat race.

When I was there at the start of the year my wife and I went out for breakfast, just wanted the usual toast/coffee whatever. All we could find open was greasy burger joints serving greasy **** at 8am. You just don't see that here.

Have to agree with this. Only two OS holidays have been to New York (as they are not as bad as many other states). The serving were so ridiculously huge we took photos of many meals as we knew people would not believe us if we just told them!!
 
Have to agree with this. Only two OS holidays have been to New York (as they are not as bad as many other states). The serving were so ridiculously huge we took photos of many meals as we knew people would not believe us if we just told them!!

And this is when people should take advantage of the large serve, and share it.
 
our portions in australia are pretty large too, when my family first moved here we used to share meals as the portions were just too big. unfortunately you get used to them after a while...

Sanj, That depends on where you go. I remember a couple years ago I booked a four course meal at a 5 star restaurant for my bf's work Christmas party (he's in construction). The food was displayed like art served on pieces of slate, breathtakingly beautiful. But the portions were too small for the boys and they went to hungry jacks afterwards. I felt so bad they didn't have enough to eat but it was rather funny.

We made it up to them last year. Four course meal at our place and we made sure the portions were big enough that they couldn't finish. They still talk about those two Christmas parties now.
 
I'm not so sure. I'm 28 years old and I can still remember the people in my year level from primary school by name who were overweight - that's how rare and unusual it was. I grew up in a low socio-economic area too.
Same here.

Contrastingly, when we lived in Santa Rosa, my son went to the local State Primary School in Grade 1..

It is a lower-socio-economic area.

Many, many fat kids there. Quite shocking.

They offered breakfast for free for the kids - Flavoured milk, pancakes etc were on the menu, which - as a one off now and again are OK - but it was every day - and of course; the kids will eat the yummiest stuff and not the boring stuff.
 
Back
Top