this whole argument is to vague for me.
is this discussion solely based on calories?




[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM. Reason : sdfdfd]

10/9/2009 12:30:15 AM

Basically, very few people are actually looking at a bag of potato chips and saying, "Wow, 300 calories a serving for only 23 cents! I'm sticking with the chips!" So you can't argue that's the mechanism behind most people's food choices. Also, like I said, the savings are lost when you invariably eat twice as much of the junk food calories as you actually need...so it turns out not to be cheaper.

It has more to do with what they were raised on, what they know how and have time to cook, what they have access to, education, what is advertised, what seems appealing, etc...


Now, the calorie per dollar argument was definitely meaningful decades ago (my grandma didn't serve biscuits and potatoes for nothing!) so if you observe something that looks like that today, it's a historical vestige of poverty.

And I think it's important to note that there are some people that are legitimately still on the "calorie per dollar" tip because they are that poor, but those people are not that common.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:48 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2009 12:36:38 AM

Come on, let's argue!

10/9/2009 12:49:33 AM

Okay, I'll talk to myself.

We've all been there as college students. Seen we had ten bucks and two weeks to go in the month. Nobody in their right mind would go to the grocery store and buy four bags of carrots with that ten dollars. Nah, you buy as much mac/cheese and Ramen as possible.

But do we think that's the mechanism behind the food choices of all people in poverty? Could there be something else involved besides the "calories per dollar" argument?

10/9/2009 1:02:06 AM

Quote :

"But junk food is really, really overpriced. A couple years ago, I was "treating" myself to a cart full of junk food at Harris Teeter. The line was especially long so it gave me time to think...I was wasting my time, waiting in line, to be overcharged like crazy for food that was going to kill me. I can't remember what I did, but I believe I may have abandoned the cart right there in the middle of the line, and if that's the case, I'd like to take this moment to apologize for inconveniencing the workers."

This isn't supported by anything. Junk food is not really really overpriced. It's really really cheap. Buying chips, soda, packaged food, instant food like ramon/rice-a-roni (shit invented during WWII for troops that was brought into American homes because it was fast, easy, and cheap) is cheap. We already discussed how junk food is so cheap and it's partially because the government heavenly subsidizes corn (think high fructose corn syrup, main ingredient for almost all junk food). Another reason why so many other countries have problems developing agriculture because it's just cheaper to import because of how much our government subsidizes certain crops.

Quote :

"So what are you arguing here? you are making the argument that calories in junk food are cheaper. calories are not a unit of nutrition, as you yourself have pointed out. so your whole argument that eating healthy is more expensive (based solely on calories) isn't making any sense."

I don't really understand your point. I'm arguing that calories in junk food are cheaper than the SAME amount of calories in healthy food. Yes, calories are a measure of energy not nutrition, which backs up my point why empty calories cost less than nutritional calories. My point makes sense.

Quote :

"this whole argument is to vague for me. is this discussion solely based on calories?"

Basically. I agree with almost everything you guys are saying. You can eat healthy for cheap, but that's not at all what i'm arguing about.

Quote :

"It has more to do with what they were raised on, what they know how and have time to cook, what they have access to, education, what is advertised, what seems appealing, etc..."

I completely agree that all that plays a big roll in what people eat. That's not what i'm arguing though.

Quote :

"Okay, I'll talk to myself."

Quote :

" But do we think that's the mechanism behind the food choices of all people in poverty? Could there be something else involved besides the "calories per dollar" argument?"

Sorry had to go play some pool. Yes i completely agree there's much much more involved in what people eat than calories per dollar. BUT all i am arguing was calories per dollar.

All i'm saying is:

1. A certain person based upon their weight, exercise, etc needs a certain amount of energy (calories) a day to sustain themselves without either going hungry or gaining massive amounts of weight.

2. Buying 500 empty calories is cheaper than trying to buy 500 healthy calories. Can be proven with any junk food. Soda, ramon, snickers bars, etc.

3. People CAN sustain themselves by eating junk food. We all know people do it.

4. Hence from (1) it is cheaper to eat junk food (2), to sustain oneself (3) than from eating the same calories in healthy food.

Quote :

"While the cheaper calorie argument is compelling, it breaks down because people eat twice as many of the cheap calories as they need so the cost benefits are lost...sure, the food is cheaper per calorie but if you're practically guaranteed to eat too much of it, it's no longer cheaper."

This is a really good point, but note at the very beginning of the argument i made a point to say i was comparing two people with the SAME caloric intake each day and how that person could sustain themselves from either A. junk food, or B. healthy food.

If you took a person and a clone of that person. Both of them would require say 2000 calories to sustain themselves a day then clone A could get that amount from junk food a lot cheaper than clone B could with healthy food. That's all I'm saying. I don't know how to put it any other way.

"The kilogram calorie, large calorie, food calorie, Calorie (capital C) or just calorie (lowercase c) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius." -wiki

If i had a machine that read food calories and i wanted to make it hit 2000 the cheapest i could, then i would obviously be giving it chips, soda, etc. Trying to fill it with fruits, vegetables, rice, beans, etc would require more money and more food. Think of the machine as like a car. A car can technically run off cheap gas, oil, components etc but it's not going to last as long. Whereas if you fill it with more expensive oil, gas, components it's obviously going to last longer and run better. It's the same with humans. We require a certain amount of energy to run, but what makes up that energy is what determines how healthy our system is.

10/9/2009 1:54:40 AM

Quote :

"And I think it's important to note that there are some people that are legitimately still on the "calorie per dollar" tip because they are that poor, but those people are not that common."

I guess I'm one in a million.

10/9/2009 2:14:43 AM

^^Well, you're totally right on that very basic point

I agree with you, and I think everybody else would agree with you.




But what's the point of your point? What are the practical implications of your (correct) assertion? How many people out there do you think are consciously shopping on a calories-per-dollar model, and should we try to change this condition?

The more I think about it, the more I'm willing to acknowledge that a lot of people (poor and otherwise) do shop calories-per-dollar, but I think that applies more when it comes to rice, pasta, potatoes, etc...not soda, candy bars, or fried foods...those items are across-the-board purchased by all classes for reasons other than their perceived cheap calories (and they are not cheap!)...for instance, whole oatmeal is way cheaper per-calorie than candy bars or potato chips...why aren't we all eating whole oatmeal all the time?

And I stand by my assertion that junk food is way overpriced. The stuff ultimately kills us...they should pay us to eat it.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 3:32 AM. Reason : ?]

10/9/2009 3:26:02 AM

Everyone is arguing with you because

1: According to the argument you are pursuing, you should have titled your thead "Eating Healthy Calories Costs More" or some variation of that

2: Yes, everyone understands that junk-food empty calories are the cheapest

but

3: You can't live off just calories in the first place, so in the grand scheme of "eating healthy" and comparing calorie costs it doesn't fucking matter because there is more to consider.



You are arguing calories, we are arguing eating healthy, just like the original argument with your family.

10/9/2009 8:56:28 AM

I'm not understanding the calorie argument... yes calories are a measurement of energy, but do you know how they're calculated for food?

carbohydrate = 4 cal/gram
protein = 4 cal/gram
fat = 9 cal/gram

so if a food has 35g of carbs, 15g of fat and 20g of pro: 35 x 4 + 15 x 9 + 20 x 4 = 355 calories for that food

so what's with the "you can't live off just calories" argument?

10/9/2009 12:02:59 PM

Because you would be missing vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients that are present in all of the foods I've been mentioning.

If you had a diet of ramen noodles you'd get fucking scurvy anyway.

10/9/2009 12:19:59 PM

well yeah

that's why you buy shit like brawndo - the thirst mutilator (it's got electrolytes)

10/9/2009 12:24:21 PM