So I'm at the beach with the relatives and I got into an argument about why lower income families tend to eat unhealthy compared to higher income families.

My point was that it costs more to eat healthier foods. Their point was you can eat just as healthy with the same amount of money and that low income families were simply eating junk food because of a lack of education and not being informed about how to eat healthy.

This is a good example of what I'm trying to prove:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/

It simply states that on a per-calorie basis empty calories are cheaper than nutritional calories.

i.e. you can buy a candy bar for $2 and get 500 calories whereas you would have to spend a lot more than $2 to get 500 calories of healthy nutritional food.

They were blaming it on education and saying it has nothing to do with calories and you can eat healthy for just as cheap as eating unhealthy. What am i missing here? Apologies for the rant.

9/26/2009 1:39:22 AM

really, if you plan/have the time to do the proper shopping and comparisions, you can get away with fairly healthy meals on a tight budget

i do think that most lower income households do not have the proper skills to do so, though

9/26/2009 1:42:30 AM

you're right.

mass produced, highly processed food is cheaper.

go to a Whole Foods (or whatever you have) and try and do your weekly shopping.

now if youre smart and motivated and have time to go to various stores and farmers markets for the best value, then mayb you can do it on a budget. but it's tough.

9/26/2009 1:44:47 AM

Quote :

"Eating Healthy Costs More"

Well no shit.

And if you consider your time to be money, especially if you have a whole lot of mouths to feed, then the whole argument about how you can eat healthy on a tight budget goes right the fuck out the window. Especially if your time is spent working two jobs to make ends meet.

I tell you this: you don't get real quality good food anywhere for cheap. Healthy eating is a lifestyle that is overwhelmingly an unaffordable luxury for most financially challenged families. And by financially challenged families, I am NOT referring to ones who pony up for beer, liquor, cigarettes, and pot instead of food.

9/26/2009 1:47:54 AM

Quote :

"Healthy eating is a lifestyle that is overwhelmingly an unaffordable luxury for most financially challenged families."

yes.

Quote :

"And if you consider your time to be money, especially if you have a whole lot of mouths to feed, then the whole argument about how you can eat healthy on a tight budget goes right the fuck out the window. Especially if your time is spent working two jobs to make ends meet."

unfortunately

9/26/2009 1:50:39 AM

whole milk... $3 per 2400 calories

9/26/2009 1:52:05 AM

Exactly I agree with everything you guys have said. I just get in a room with 5 older relatives who are trying to convince me you can eat just as healthy for the same price and it's all about "education" and we have to "educate" these low income families to use their $5 a day to eat just as healthy as higher income families.

I'm not saying you can't eat healthy for cheap, i'm simply saying it's cheaper to not eat healthy.


I also did some research and found out that the reason why junk would costs less is because the government subsidizes dairy/meat A LOT more than they subsidize fruits and vegetables.

So it's like an inverse correlation between what the government subsidizes and what's healthy for you:

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071101/why_eating_healthy_costs_more_than_eating_unhealthily

^drinking a gallon of whole milk to get your calories isn't really considered healthy.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 1:56 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2009 1:54:14 AM

Dairy/meat are healthy for you, so I am missing your point.

You can easily eat healthy as a large family. Per calorie, meat is still very expensive. Rice, beans, and legumes are all wildly inexpensive in bulk quantities and could easily provide all your caloric needs for far less than 5 dollars a day per person. Add in some cheap fruit (bananas, apples, etc) ,vegetables (cabbage, carrots, etc) and milk and you have your vitamins and minerals.

Healthy, unprepared and unprepackaged, is cheap and affordable.

9/26/2009 2:37:14 AM

Ramen is 10 cents a package. About as unhealthy and cheap as I can come up with.

9/26/2009 2:48:08 AM

^^you're still missing the point.

I'm not saying you can't eat healthy for cheap I'm saying on a price basis empty calories (junk food) cost less per calorie than healthy calories (rice, beans, fruits, vegetables, etc). If you were to add up what you needed to get say 1500 calories a day from healthy well-rounded food it would come out more expensive than what you would need to get to 1500 calories with junk food.

^perfect example. You can find ramen noodles for $.10-.20 which provide ~200 empty calories. You'd be hard pressed to find a healthy well rounded meal with 200 calories for 10 cents.

Processed foods have a lot of energy (calories), they're also not typically as good for you, but you can survive on them and they cost less.

9/26/2009 2:40:44 PM

it costs about 35-40 dollars a week to eat healthy as shit

9/26/2009 2:47:32 PM

^yeah and you could get the same amount of calories but eat junk food for much less than that.

9/26/2009 2:52:13 PM

it's not the food that's unhealthy; it's the amount of it they're eating. 5000 calories a day will turn you into a lardass just as easily as 5000 calories of junk food.

9/26/2009 2:53:38 PM

^^sounds like a bunch of simple carbs that leave you hungry an hour later. i bet hardly any protein or fiber. and 35-40 is not a lot, so much less is like what, half? 20 bucks a week? come on guy, we're in our 20's.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2009 2:54:06 PM

Quote :

"Add in some cheap fruit (bananas, apples, etc) ,vegetables (cabbage, carrots, etc) and milk and you have your vitamins and minerals."

None of that stuff is cheap.

9/26/2009 2:56:27 PM

7 bananas is like 2 bucks tops. you can buy a bag of 10 apples for 3.99. bag of brocoli and carrots mix is 2.69. split that into 7 snacks. 7 kiwis are like 3.50

how jewish are yall?

9/26/2009 2:58:16 PM

This is basic knowledge

Sounds like the rest of your family is dumb as shit

9/26/2009 3:05:03 PM

Who stops at 1500 calories of junk food per day though? I don't think the per-calorie argument is as valid as a lot of people seem to think, because usually the people who are eating the processed fatty, sugary crap don't stop at a healthy calorie intake. They go well beyond that, whereas it's a lot easier to be satisfied on 1500 calories of whole foods.

9/26/2009 3:05:21 PM

I'll go ahead and call bullshit.

First, you might get 1500 calories and 30 grams of fat for $5 at Wendys, but guess what; there is a lot more to food than fat and calories. While you're getting plenty of fat and calories you are failing yourself at vitamins and nutrients that your body needs. If you measure food by some other scale you're going to fail miserably with fast food.

Second, your breakdown is failing to recognize that a person needs three well rounded meals per day. So, at minimum you're looking at $10-$18 per day if you eat at fast food joints. They are not eating one fast food meal for $3.50-$6.00 and saying "WELP, LORDY ME, I GUESS THAT'S IT FOR TODAY."

Those fuckers aren't saving a fucking dime. All they're doing is getting an excessive amount of calories and fat for the $10-$18 per day that it costs to feed themselves.

AND YOU CAN GET A FUCK OF A LOT OF HEALTHY FOOD FOR $10-$18 PER DAY. You can load up on whole grains, fruit, healthy lean meats, and vegetables for that price.

So, your relatives were right. They just weren't very good at arguing their point.

Addendum: Candy bars have no place in this argument. If you can't afford real food I don't see why you'd be buying a fucking candy bar. Buy some quinoa or whole grain rice and a little broccoli or spinach with that two dollars.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : l]

9/26/2009 3:47:13 PM

Chicken, beans, rice, squash, carrots, tilapia, tuna in a can...

I think you can eat healthy for cheap. It's just people don't cook.

9/26/2009 4:24:42 PM

food costs a quarter of what it did half a century ago compared to income, yet people excuse the obesity epidemic of our lower income population on the cost of food.

9/26/2009 5:00:39 PM

^^^you're missing the entire point. I wasn't only saying fast food was cheaper I'm saying in general empty calories are cheaper than nutritional calories.

Did you even read the article?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/

Google "food price health", and almost every result supports this claim. I'm not talking about nutritional value I'm simply saying empty unhealthy calories are cheaper than nutritional healthy calories. This is backed up by almost all of the research I could find. I couldn't find any articles that suggested you can get the same number of calories from nutritional food as unhealthy food (junk food, fast food, ramen, rice-o-roni, etc) for the same price. That's all I'm saying.

^that is completely irrelevant to this. I'm just saying according to studies empty calories cost less than nutritional calories.

-It obviously has to do with upbringing and education too, but i'm not arguing anything societal. I'm simply saying on a scientific basis if you added the cheapest 1500 calories you could find, with a nutritional 1500 calories the later would cost more. That's all.

Quote :

"I think you can eat healthy for cheap. It's just people don't cook."

But you have to consider the time it takes to prepare food. If lower income families are working more hours than the time it takes to prepare meals every day is money lost. Everything about eating healthy costs more. Processed cheap foods are high in energy and low in nutrients. Why people can live off them for cheap.

Quote :

"food costs a quarter of what it did half a century ago compared to income, yet people excuse the obesity epidemic of our lower income population on the cost of food."

you seem to be implying people can spend 4 times as much on food now a days. Compared to 50 years ago families have more things to pay for. More cars, higher costs of living, etc. You can't make a direct relationship between the cost of food versus the income level over a 50 year period. Have to take everything else into account.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2009 5:03:49 PM

i think taxing sugar would have a double digit increase for USA

9/26/2009 5:16:10 PM

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071101/why_eating_healthy_costs_more_than_eating_unhealthily

This one was really interesting:

Quote :

"And corn subsidies in particular aren't just why meat is subsidized. It's why things like pop and other types of junk food are so much cheaper than healthy foods (think high-fructose corn syrup), which is also why poor people tend to be more obese, have higher incidences of diabetes, and so on. Empty and unhealthy calories are just cheaper, and they're cheaper because the government straight-up subsidizes them. Smart farm policy would do a massive revamp. Instead of subsidizing industrial agriculture of feed crops and empty calories, subsidies would be shifted to reduce the ecological footprint of farming, subsidize healthy calories in the form of vegetables and fruits and would seek to move agriculture onto a model which uses a lot less water and oil."

9/26/2009 5:18:58 PM

Quote :

"you seem to be implying people can spend 4 times as much on food now a days. Compared to 50 years ago families have more things to pay for. More cars, higher costs of living, etc. You can't make a direct relationship between the cost of food versus the income level over a 50 year period. Have to take everything else into account. "

I wasn't implying anything; I made a statement of fact. we subsidize the fuck out of our farming industry and hand out food stamps to the poorest people. You seem to be implying that we should be giving away food so that poor people can spend their money on luxuries like cars and living costs beyond housing.

you're still ignoring the basic fact that the quality of food isn't what makes people fat - it's the quantity. organic free range chicken breasts isn't any healthier than white meat chicken in a can.

9/26/2009 5:27:56 PM

As far as disposable income; people spend more on non essential items than food.

9/26/2009 5:29:20 PM

Its all about the portions

9/26/2009 5:29:42 PM

Quote :

"Who stops at 1500 calories of junk food per day though? I don't think the per-calorie argument is as valid as a lot of people seem to think, because usually the people who are eating the processed fatty, sugary crap don't stop at a healthy calorie intake. They go well beyond that, whereas it's a lot easier to be satisfied on 1500 calories of whole foods."

9/26/2009 5:32:21 PM

Quote :

"You seem to be implying that we should be giving away food so that poor people can spend their money on luxuries like cars and living costs beyond housing."

No i don't think that at all. I agree with what you're saying. I'm simply saying on a calorie basis empty calories are cheaper than nutritional calories. That's all I'm saying.

Quote :

"you're still ignoring the basic fact that the quality of food isn't what makes people fat - it's the quantity. organic free range chicken breasts isn't any healthier than white meat chicken in a can."

Some people would argue against that. They would say organic free range chicken is healthier because it may have less fat or less hormones or whatever. I'm not an expert on it. There's a reason why people say organic meat is better.

9/26/2009 5:42:03 PM

NO



SHIT


48 cents a lb for chicken
$2 for one tomato
twelve Twinkies for 3 bucks

dont worry though, glorious leader will bestow upon us food rationing. that will help somehow

9/26/2009 5:45:34 PM

Quote :

"organic free range chicken breasts isn't any healthier than white meat chicken in a can."

Yes it is.

Gram per gram, organic free range chicken is orders of magnitude higher in healthy fats (CLA, Omega-3, monounsaturated) than commercial chicken, lower in saturated fat, and a lot lower in total fat content.

Same goes for beef/turkey/pork/whatever.

The meat commericially available comes from obese animals, and that's a fact. That's what happens when you feed corn and soybeans to animals that are supposed to eat grass, insects, worms, berries, mushrooms, etc, if left to feed themselves.

So not only do people eat too much meat, but the quality of meat is terrible as well. If you eat meat from obese animals, you become obese too.

Now, the evil necessity of commercial crop and animal farming in this world of 6+ billion people is another issue. I am just setting some facts straight.

9/26/2009 5:53:28 PM

^^I'm not implying I eat unhealthy or that I have a lack of money. Just in general. Wanted to get everyone's opinion.

^Thank you. You explained why organic meat is good, better than i could. Also backing up the fact that eating healthier food, or meat in this case costs more.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 5:57 PM. Reason : /]

9/26/2009 5:53:41 PM

I totally agree with the OP. Being single, it is a whole lot easier/cheaper to eat junk food than it is to try and cook for one person. The cost goes down some, but the same principle applies to families as well. That is why so many fast food places are being blamed for fattening people (only low cost options are high in fat).

Also, in regards to this:

Quote :

"organic free range chicken breasts isn't any healthier than white meat chicken in a can."

I don't have any links to support this but according to my nutrition teacher (Dr. Gary Matsey) last semester, "free range" basically means that the chickens were allowed to go outside at some point during the day. It does not specify how long or how often they were allowed to go out so basically it is BS.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2009 6:04:32 PM

^^ You are welcome.

EDIT:

The benefits I mentioned are from being free-range (because the animals are leaner).

And if organic as well, then you have the benefits of no/very low exposure (intentional or otherwise) to pesticides, hormones, harsh fertilizers, and other chemicals.


^ That might be the industry definition, but I am not playing with semantics here. When I talk about free-range, I really mean free-range, i.e., the vast majority of the waking hours of the animal are spent in a natural setting outside of any buildings or artificial settings, exposed to natural earth and air.


[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2009 6:07:16 PM

you are right, it does. however it's not out of reach for lower income families to eat healthier it's just more difficult.

9/26/2009 6:08:33 PM

Quote :

"Some people would argue against that. They would say organic free range chicken is healthier because it may have less fat or less hormones or whatever."

And those people are fucking morons. The science does not indicate that there is any difference in their composition, regardless of what hippies will try to tell you. farmed fish may be worse than caught fish, but chicken is chicken. free range chicken just means they let it outside for an hour yet feed it the same diet.

9/26/2009 6:28:34 PM

food lion mac and cheese is 10 cents a box

9/26/2009 7:01:05 PM

^ Would that be an example of healthy eating or unhealthy eating?

9/26/2009 7:02:26 PM

^haha unhealthy. Mac and Cheese is a processed food high in fat, sodium, and processed flour.

^^^
Like 0EPII1 said:

Quote :

" ^ That might be the industry definition, but I am not playing with semantics here. When I talk about free-range, I really mean free-range, i.e., the vast majority of the waking hours of the animal are spent in a natural setting outside of any buildings or artificial settings, exposed to natural earth and air."

Also they eat what they would naturally eat compared to the cheapest fastest solution. There is a considerable difference in organic chicken.

For example just use your common sense. A leaner chicken is obviously healthier because it has less total fat. An obese chicken is going to be less healthy. Although it's cheaper to fatten up the chickens and get as much meat out of them as you can.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 8:05 PM. Reason : /]

9/26/2009 8:05:06 PM

how do you fatten up a chicken breast? this isn't a cow you're talking about. why don't you find some valid scientific data backing up your claims or quit talking out of your ass.

do you believe there is a healthier free range tuna that's better for you than the chunk tuna in a can?

9/26/2009 8:12:06 PM

2lb bag of carrots - $1.50
bananas - $0.50-0.75/pound
can of beans - $0.90
big bag of brown rice - $2-3

9/26/2009 8:14:45 PM

Quote :

"how do you fatten up a chicken breast?"

By exclusively feeding it corn. Why are you being a stubborn troll? Chickens left to their own devices eat everything, not just corn.

I have had free-range chicken several times (raised in the country side on open fields and allowed to eat whatever they find in the fields.)

Here are the differences I found between commercial chicken and the free-range chicken I sometimes have:

1) The parts are noticeably smaller.
2) The meat has an awesome intense taste.
3) It is way leaner. (lower in fat, nit just smaller in size)
4) When I have chicken, I always crush the drumstick bones into several pieces and eat the bone marrow inside. With the free range chicken drumstick bone, I can barely crack it in my mouth, let alone crush it or get to the contents inside.

The free range chickens (SLAUGHTERED IN FRONT OF MY EYES) weigh about 60% of a commercial one, but still cost 50% more. They are very skinny (while alive) compared to the fat commercial chickens (also being sold in the same place).

Oh, and the chickens have gorgeous colors... not the factory white.

Quote :

"do you believe there is a healthier free range tuna that's better for you than the chunk tuna in a can?"

What the hell are you talking about? The tuna in a can is already wild tuna. In the same vein a PROPER free range chicken is as close to a wild chicken as you can get. If you can't find PROPER free range chickens where you live is not my problem. Are you really arguing that an animal allowed to run around and not fed grain is not going to be healthier than one kept in a tiny spot and fed grain?



[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2009 8:36:53 PM

neodata686, I agree with your argument. I've often thought the same thing though, about eating healthy and how costly it is. I don't eat a whole lot, but I'm a snacker. I always wish I could buy all of my food @ Whole Foods (such as the pre-made meals or the stuff @ the buffet), but it's way to expensive. I only get some things there.

9/26/2009 8:38:44 PM

9/26/2009 8:39:43 PM

i feed the chickens nip chee crackers and fortune cookies, is that better or worse than corn-based feed?

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : s]

9/26/2009 8:41:00 PM

Quote :

"Are you really arguing that an animal allowed to run around and not fed grain is not going to be healthier than one kept in a tiny spot and fed grain?"

I am arguing exactly that, since that is what the scientific data backs up. you're spitting out hippie bullshit about caged chickens. smaller chickens does not mean leaner chickens or more nutricious chickens.

9/26/2009 8:49:31 PM

Caged chickens? WTF are you talking about?

I told you that when I do get free range chickens, I get them from someone who actually raises them on pasture and doesn't feed them corn. I know what I eat, jerk.

Those chickens are older than battery chickens, smaller in size, and lower in fat gram for gram. You are gonna tell me what I eat?

As I said, in the US there is no government definition of "free range" (unlike 'organic'), and that's not my problem. Go to a trusted source that you actually know raises chickens on pasture and buy one of his chickens. Or go have chicken in countries where they are raised naturally in villages.

Studies have shown free range eggs to be more nutritious than battery eggs. I am sure it is the same for properly free ranged chickens. (NOTE: when I say free range, I mean they also eat on the pasture, not just have access to the pasture but still eat the same shit corn)

Of course the 'scientific data' backs up what you are saying because the data comes from "free range" chickens which go out for an hour or two but are still fed corn. So, there is no difference between those and battery chickens.

But to say that there is no difference between chickens which can run around AND feed on pasture and chickens which are raised in tight spaces and are fed corn

is akin to saying

there is no difference in the health, body composition, and blood chemistry of a couch potato who munches on Doritos all day and someone who goes outside for walks for several hours a day and eats fruits and vegetables.

Jesus, no one is that thick.


[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2009 9:03:33 PM

oatmeal, peanut butter sandwiches, blueberries

/thread

9/26/2009 10:22:23 PM

Quote :

"Google "food price health", and almost every result supports this claim. I'm not talking about nutritional value I'm simply saying empty unhealthy calories are cheaper than nutritional healthy calories. This is backed up by almost all of the research I could find. I couldn't find any articles that suggested you can get the same number of calories from nutritional food as unhealthy food (junk food, fast food, ramen, rice-o-roni, etc) for the same price. That's all I'm saying."

Read the first part of your first post again...

Quote :

"My point was that it costs more to eat healthier foods. Their point was you can eat just as healthy with the same amount of money and that low income families were simply eating junk food because of a lack of education and not being informed about how to eat healthy."

You are talking about nutritional value. Nutritional value is implied when you say "healthier foods."
My point is just the same as your relatives. Those fuckers are spending $10-$18 a day to eat utter shit. That same $10-$18 would easily cover the cost of healthy foods.

While the second part of your post talks about the cost of empty calories vs the cost of nutritional calories I say that the whole argument is irrelevant because those people are choosing to spend the same amount of money on an exorbitant amount of empty calories rather than buying a balanced diet which includes healthy fat, calories, vitamins, and minerals. If said people were somehow getting by on less money than those of us who eat healthily your argument would be valid, but since they spend enough money to eat healthy foods your argument is irrelevant.

I can put a baked chicken breast, side of quinoa, apple, broccoli, salad, and water on the table for $5 or less. You cannot argue that fast food is cost effective. People eat fast food for convenience and desire...not to save money.

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM. Reason : l]

9/26/2009 10:56:59 PM

Quote :

"You are talking about nutritional value. Nutritional value is implied when you say "healthier foods." My point is just the same as your relatives. Those fuckers are spending $10-$18 a day to eat utter shit. That same $10-$18 would easily cover the cost of healthy foods."

I said in the OP that my argument was basically the same as that first article i posted:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/

Specifically:

Quote :

"The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods."

I realize this is a generalization based upon the 370 foods they did the study on, but my basic point was that:

Quote :

"If said people were somehow getting by on less money than those of us who eat healthily your argument would be valid,"

I didn't mean to imply:

Quote :

"but since they spend enough money to eat healthy foods your argument is irrelevant."

I should not have brought up fast food. I meant people who get by on less money by buying unhealthy food get the same amount of calories but the food isn't as healthy as people who spend more on the same amount of calories but also get the nutrients.

Quote :

"is akin to saying there is no difference in the health, body composition, and blood chemistry of a couch potato who munches on Doritos all day and someone who goes outside for walks for several hours a day and eats fruits and vegetables. Jesus, no one is that thick."

Yeah really. If you're disputing that i don't know what to say. Meat from a healthy naturally raised animal is obviously going to be better than meat from a poorly fed, mass produced animal.

I mean if you wanted to try human for the first time, would you rather try a fat obese couch potato who eats McDonald's all day, or would you want to eat a healthy fit human who eats nutritional foods all day. I know that's a morbid example but if you think of it that way there's an obvious connection between how healthy your food is and the conditions at which that animal was raised.

9/26/2009 11:22:14 PM