DiningBuzz! - The “Only Rich People Can Afford Healthy Food” Myth?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lUhfZmUWjxE/T9odIfqGvmI/AAAAAAAAAig/214oUVV_jZ4/s1600/food+prices.jpg

http://healthynewdawn.com/2012/06/15/only-rich-people-can-afford-healthy-food-the-myth/

While I like the graphic and I do think it makes a good point, I'm not necessarily convinced that better food isn't more expensive in the long run. Organics, for example, will tend to be more expensive surely.

The graphic is comparing prepared food to raw ingredients. How is this a valid comparison?

The graphic is comparing prepared food to raw ingredients. How is this a valid comparison?

Not sure I follow. Are you saying there are costs to cooking that need to be incorporated into the analysis?

Buying a meal at a restaurant is significantly more expensive than making that same meal at home. And the McDonalds meal includes drinks while the others don't, throwing off the price comparison and the calorie comparison.

Buying a meal at a restaurant is significantly more expensive than making that same mrsl at home.

But isn't that the whole point of this graphic? Isn't the myth that eating at McD's is cheaper than cooking healthy at home?

But isn't that the whole point of this graphic? Isn't the myth that eating at McD's is cheaper than cooking healthy at home?

Then why is the title of your thread "The 'Only Rich People Can Afford Healthy Food' Myth" and not "The 'Eating At McD's Is Cheaper Than Cooking Healthy At Home' Myth"?

Then why is the title of your thread "The 'Only Rich People Can Afford Healthy Food' Myth" and not "The 'Eating At McD's Is Cheaper Than Cooking Healthy At Home' Myth"?

Because the second one is really stupid?

And also it's the quote from the blog I got this from.

Because the second one is really stupid?

You are the one who voiced the (alleged) myth. <Shrug>

You are the one who voiced the (alleged) myth. <Shrug>

I should have been more clear, my sincere apologies my good friend. I was suggesting that the McD's example was an instance of the myth, not the myth itself. Thank you very much for allowing me to clarify.

And the McDonalds meal includes drinks while the others don't, throwing off the price comparison and the calorie comparison.The milk is somehow not included in the price/calorie comparisons?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lUhfZmUWjxE/T9odIfqGvmI/AAAAAAAAAig/214oUVV_jZ4/s1600/food+prices.jpg

http://healthynewdawn.com/2012/06/15/only-rich-people-can-afford-healthy-food-the-myth/

While I like the graphic and I do think it makes a good point, I'm not necessarily convinced that better food isn't more expensive in the long run. Organics, for example, will tend to be more expensive surely.

Even buying in season and not organic ... those fruits and veggies add up.

Time is also money ... and cooking on budget takes time. Time for menu planning based on whats on sale, time to shop, and time to cook.

If you eat off the dollar menu at McD's, you can get at least that much food for under $20. Not saying its nutritionally sound, but still...

Then there's the issue of not being able to buy $.55 worth of oil, or 4 slices of bread. Cooking is cheaper if you plan ahead and do it regularly ... and that goes back to the time issue. If you're working a couple jobs to make ends meet, it would be pretty easy to forget to put those beans out to soak the night before.

Also... no seasonings other than salt & pepper? And plain bread?

The milk is somehow not included in the price/calorie comparisons?

absolutely right. missed the milk.

If you're working a couple jobs to make ends meet, it would be pretty easy to forget to put those beans out to soak the night before.

I agree, though don't you think folks often also use the time excuse when it's not really true? I know lots of folks, for example, who talk about not having enough time to do this and that but what they really mean is that when they get home at night they're tired so they conk out on the couch or whatever. I think often the time argument reduces to an argument about effort.

Not counting the costs of the time and convenience needed to transform the raw materials into something edible (and discounting the fact that some people simple do not know how to do it) is what singles your post as tendentious.

I don't know what you want to prove; it is definitely not that it would be cheaper to eat at home - for this to happen, someone has to cook. And this someone could, perhaps, think that he/she has better things to do with their time.

Not counting the costs of the time and convenience needed to transform the raw materials into something edible (and discounting the fact that some people simple do not know how to do it) is what singles your post as tendentious.

First of all this is an absurd assumption: raw food is often edible. @:-)

Second, what are the costs of time needed to cook beans and rice, for example? 20 minutes?


I don't know what you want to prove; it is definitely not that it would be cheaper to eat at home - for this to happen, someone has to cook. And this someone could, perhaps, think that he/she has better things to do with their time.

I don't want to prove anything. I want to shed light on this prevalent myth, one you seem to have bought into. I think it's wrong. I think you're wrong. That's my point.

Not having time to cook....
Not knowing how to cook...

All excuses since MCDonalds is a easier and faster way of doing things.

Having time to cook means making the time to cook -- rather than coming home and watching 1-2 hrs of asinine TV shows with a Burger and fries -- how about you get off your arse and cook something? There are many healthy and easy meals that can be made in less than 30 mins.

Not knowing how to cook is somewhat more difficult but even that hurdle can be crossed -- buy a simple cookbook and start learning little by little. Instead of TV shows, buy DVD's that can show you how to cook. Take a community college no credit course "Intro to Cooking".

I think it is a good comparison but everyone has to go and nitpick every single little detail -- stop looking at the tree and pay attention to the forest.

Instead of TV shows

Or watch a tv show about cooking! That annoying Emeril will teach you how to cook 4 meals in 30 minutes. :)

First of all this is an absurd assumption: raw food is often edible. @:-)

Second, what are the costs of time needed to cook beans and rice, for example? 20 minutes?


If already know how to make it, and have all the ingredients

using canned beans... 30 minutes.

using dried beans .... overnight soaking plus 1 1/2 hours of cooking

Or watch a tv show about cooking! That annoying Emeril will teach you how to cook 4 meals in 30 minutes. :)

I agree with your point that it need not cost more to eat a more healthy diet, but your method of proving that point is ineffective, hence all the comments.

Why not compare two prepared meals from fast food, one healthy (they do exist), one not?

Or conversely, the same prepared at home. These would be more effective comparisons.

...overnight soaking plus 1 1/2 hours of cooking

I'd say for truly tasty, four hours is more like it.

I agree with your point that it need not cost more to eat a more healthy diet, but your method of proving that point is ineffective, hence all the comments.

Again, my aim is not to "prove' anything. These comments are non sequitors really.

using canned beans... 30 minutes.


Even faster with a pressure cooker. :)

Again, my aim is not to "prove' anything. These comments are non sequitors really.

Apologies. The graphics in your post were so large, that I missed the comment that you added at the end. My comment does apply to the original creator of the graphic. By calling it a myth, there is no doubt they are trying to prove just that, rather than saying it is true.

Not having time to cook....
Not knowing how to cook...

All excuses since MCDonalds is a easier and faster way of doing things.

Having time to cook means making the time to cook -- rather than coming home and watching 1-2 hrs of asinine TV shows with a Burger and fries -- how about you get off your arse and cook something? There are many healthy and easy meals that can be made in less than 30 mins.

Not knowing how to cook is somewhat more difficult but even that hurdle can be crossed -- buy a simple cookbook and start learning little by little. Instead of TV shows, buy DVD's that can show you how to cook. Take a community college no credit course "Intro to Cooking".

I think it is a good comparison but everyone has to go and nitpick every single little detail -- stop looking at the tree and pay attention to the forest.

It seems like you are the one looking at the "i'm just lazy" tree, when there is actually a whole forest of reasons why people feel like cooking at home is more expensive than eating out.

The myth that the graphic is trying to bust is that eating "healthy costs too much". But since it doesn't factor in the cooking, shopping, or planning time/costs, I believe what people are arguing is that the graphic isn't really representative of the true cost of the homecooked meal.

You CAN eat healthy for relatively little, IF you have the knowledge, access to reasonably priced fresh food, and the time to plan, shop for, and prepare meals.

That $.75 worth of bread is only $.75 if you can consume the entire loaf before it spoils. Otherwise, you've paid $3 for those 4 slices. And I don't know a lot of kids who will find a salad of romaine lettuce with lemon juice and oil very appealing either.

And again, if you're low income and working a couple of jobs, or are a single parent, or someone relying on public transportation ... even if you already know how to cook, you may feel that an hour spent helping your kid with homework, or picking up overtime, or sitting on your couch instead of a public bus is an hour better spent than cooking.

Every year United Way does this $7 a day challenge and a bunch of food bloggers in the area do the challenge for a week. It does bring to light how much we can save on food, but its also not very representative of actual low income living.

*I* can eat really well on $7 a day if I give up my starbucks and my hatred for packing lunch. But I enjoy cooking and have invested a lot of time and money into having nice things to cook with. It wouldn't be nearly as feasible if all I had were a couple of cheap pots and a dull knife.

I can also just look in my kitchen, see what I've got to work with, and pull something together. That takes know-how. I had a roommate that had a small repetoire of recipes that she worked with for her meal planning. You could count on everything showing up at least once in a 2 week rotation. She could have a kitchen full of food, but unless it fit one of her recipes, she had no idea what to do with it.

I can also get in my car and drive 6 miles to the grocery store that sells almost everything in bulk, so if I want to buy a cup of sugar, or $.40 worth of chickpeas, I can do that. And because I know my way around a kitchen and a grocery store, I know that I can buy a pkg of oregano in the hispanic aisle for $.69, instead of going to the spice aisle where they're going to want $5 for the same amount in a jar. I can use my lunch break and get groceries in the middle of the day and keep it in the office fridge, saving me that much time in the evening to actually cook.

If I had to take the bus or walk or only shop before/after working, picking up kids, ... the Safeway a mile away, or the 7-11 3 blocks away are going to be my options and that costs a lot more.

And thankfully my kids are past the age where they need to be shuttled to and fro, or have to be at 2 practices in 2 locations 15 minutes after I get home from work.

FYI:
i) I don't eat at McDonalds - never
ii) I don't watch TV - don't even own a TV
iii) I'm a reasonably good cook
iV) I eat out a lot, fortunately at good restaurants (for which I know I'm priviledged)

But your premiss that most people know how to cook and have the time / desire to do it is far off. Most people don't get home and sit idle for the night (they have lots of things to do), others live alone (when the economics of home cooking is even worse than for a family) and others have their own reasons.

I definitly agree that home cooking is better for your health, but I think it is patronizing to assume that the conditions to do it are avaiable to everyone and only dumb/lazy people don't do it, as implied by OP's and other's posts.

Even faster with a pressure cooker. :)

If you're eating beans and rice because that's what you can afford... you probably don't have a pressure cooker.

Heck, I don't even have a pressure cooker*. I just throw them in my Le Creuset for a few hours ... gives me more time to sit on my ... and be lazy.

*I'd put one on my wedding registry, but I already have way to much crap in my kitchen.

Another thing the OP forgot to mention is that low income families usually do not live near a good grocery store. Having worked in many low income neighborhoods, the only thing you have is 7-Eleven's and Fast food restaurants.

Have you tried to buy milk at a 7-eleven? looking at 4 - 6 dollars a gallon, and last time I checked they did not have fresh chicken or beans.

For a poor family to travel to the local discount grocer, they often have to take a city bus 30 - 60 minutes and then in turn carry the groceries back to their low income apartments on those buses. Have you ever tried to carry 5 - 6 bags of groceries on a city bus? Another thing to note is some low income families have electricity and good tap water, others do not.

I would also mention that those McD's prices are awful high. Even in CA with high wages I can get all the food in the picture for less than $20.00 not to mention the dollar menu is ripe with cheap food.

It seems like you are the one looking at the "i'm just lazy" tree, when there is actually a whole forest of reasons why people feel like cooking at home is more expensive than eating out.

The myth that the graphic is trying to bust is that eating "healthy costs too much". But since it doesn't factor in the cooking, shopping, or planning time/costs, I believe what people are arguing is that the graphic isn't really representative of the true cost of the homecooked meal.

You CAN eat healthy for relatively little, IF you have the knowledge, access to reasonably priced fresh food, and the time to plan, shop for, and prepare meals.

That $.75 worth of bread is only $.75 if you can consume the entire loaf before it spoils. Otherwise, you've paid $3 for those 4 slices. And I don't know a lot of kids who will find a salad of romaine lettuce with lemon juice and oil very appealing either.

And again, if you're low income and working a couple of jobs, or are a single parent, or someone relying on public transportation ... even if you already know how to cook, you may feel that an hour spent helping your kid with homework, or picking up overtime, or sitting on your couch instead of a public bus is an hour better spent than cooking.

Every year United Way does this $7 a day challenge and a bunch of food bloggers in the area do the challenge for a week. It does bring to light how much we can save on food, but its also not very representative of actual low income living.

*I* can eat really well on $7 a day if I give up my starbucks and my hatred for packing lunch. But I enjoy cooking and have invested a lot of time and money into having nice things to cook with. It wouldn't be nearly as feasible if all I had were a couple of cheap pots and a dull knife.

I can also just look in my kitchen, see what I've got to work with, and pull something together. That takes know-how. I had a roommate that had a small repetoire of recipes that she worked with for her meal planning. You could count on everything showing up at least once in a 2 week rotation. She could have a kitchen full of food, but unless it fit one of her recipes, she had no idea what to do with it.

I can also get in my car and drive 6 miles to the grocery store that sells almost everything in bulk, so if I want to buy a cup of sugar, or $.40 worth of chickpeas, I can do that. And because I know my way around a kitchen and a grocery store, I know that I can buy a pkg of oregano in the hispanic aisle for $.69, instead of going to the spice aisle where they're going to want $5 for the same amount in a jar. I can use my lunch break and get groceries in the middle of the day and keep it in the office fridge, saving me that much time in the evening to actually cook.

If I had to take the bus or walk or only shop before/after working, picking up kids, ... the Safeway a mile away, or the 7-11 3 blocks away are going to be my options and that costs a lot more.

And thankfully my kids are past the age where they need to be shuttled to and fro, or have to be at 2 practices in 2 locations 15 minutes after I get home from work.


I am not saying that they are "lazy" -- I am saying that they just do not want to cook -- whether they are lazy/tired/bored/ or just plain stupid (joking).

People look at cooking as work rather than a pastime. So, they come home from "work" and now have to "work" in the kitchen and then have to "work" with their kids and so on.

We eat home cooked meals everyday -- granted my wife does not work and she stays home with the newborn while the other kid just got summer vacation -- and her meals take 2hrs to cook from scratch. She genuinely enjoys cooking and I can tell you that it is much, much cheaper to eat at home than out everyday. We prefer home cooked meals rather than the food served at restaurants. Don't get me wrong, we do go to restaurants, but it is a treat rather than a necessity.

Yet, I have friends who know how to cook, have the ability to cook, have the money and the time to cook -- what they lack is the principle of why they should cook. They would rather spend the money eating out for all three meals a day rather than "work" in the kitchen everyday.

It is more of a philosophy of how one goes about it.

Another thing the OP forgot to mention is that low income families usually do not live near a good grocery store. Having worked in many low income neighborhoods, the only thing you have is 7-Eleven's and Fast food restaurants....

Welcome to FlyerTalk! Excellent first post ^

And, to follow on from your post, it is my sad experience that these sort of "comparisons" that come up from time to time by some blogger or columnist or "commentator" are very often motivated by subtle or not-so-subtle racism.

But isn't that the whole point of this graphic? Isn't the myth that eating at McD's is cheaper than cooking healthy at home?

No, the point is that it is more expensive to buy either unprepared or restaurant food that is healthy vs unprepared or restaurant food that is not. But comparing the cost of restaurant food to food you have to prepare is just stupid. It is a nonsense comparison.

Another thing the OP forgot to mention is that low income families usually do not live near a good grocery store.

I'm not sure the data supports this supposition: http://detroitfoodandfitness.com/dffc/study-shows-how-low-income-american-families-shop-cook-and-eat-on-a-budget-part-2-of-2/

But comparing the cost of restaurant food to food you have to prepare is just stupid. It is a nonsense comparison.

Why?

I'm not sure the data supports this supposition: http://detroitfoodandfitness.com/dffc/study-shows-how-low-income-american-families-shop-cook-and-eat-on-a-budget-part-2-of-2/



Why?

Because restaurants cost more than cooking at home. Because they charge for the labor plus a profit. Are you even seriously suggesting it is a reasonable comparison? Let's compare the McDs price to the vegetarian tasting menus at Picholine? It's like 30 times more. Does that work for you?

Because restaurants cost more than cooking at home?

Then this just means you don't buy into the myth to start with. The whole point of the myth is that it suggests that it is *cheaper* to eat at restaurants than cook at home.

Another thing the OP forgot to mention is that low income families usually do not live near a good grocery store. Having worked in many low income neighborhoods, the only thing you have is 7-Eleven's and Fast food restaurants.

Welcome to FlyerTalk! Excellent first post ^



Well, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-deserts-and-obesity-challenged-in-studies.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all), this bit of conventional wisdom, may not be so.

It has become an article of faith among some policy makers and advocates, including Michelle Obama, that poor urban neighborhoods are food deserts, bereft of fresh fruits and vegetables.

But two new studies have found something unexpected. Such neighborhoods not only have more fast food restaurants and convenience stores than more affluent ones, but more grocery stores, supermarkets and full-service restaurants, too. And there is no relationship between the type of food being sold in a neighborhood and obesity among its children and adolescents.

We eat out or order in 3-4 nights a week. With two busy kids: Ballet, Orchestra, Gymnastics, Tap classes, Choir, Play practice and other activities, we often find ourselves away from, or just arriving at home at dinner time.

We like home cooked meals, actually prefer them. Both my wife and I can cook. But, our lifestyle doesn't always make it practical.

cblaisd: And, to follow on from your post, it is my sad experience that these sort of "comparisons" that come up from time to time by some blogger or columnist or "commentator" are very often motivated by subtle or not-so-subtle racism.

I feel pretty certain magiciansampras is not coming from a racist place...not implying that you meant to tarnish him with this label.

He and I disagree about just everything judging from our posts over in the omni world. But, I find it quite distasteful when someone feels compelled to raise the issue of racism in a discussion where there is no evidence those engaged in the discussion are coming from such a place.

I feel pretty certain magiciansampras is not coming from a racist place. He and I disagree about just everything judging from our posts over in the omni world. I find it quite distasteful when someone feels compelled to raise the issue of racism in a discussion where there is no evidence those engaged in the discussion are coming from such a place.

To be fair I didn't think that the claim of racism was directed at me.

Though if it was: :td: :td: :td:

To be fair I didn't think that the claim of racism was directed at me.

Though if it was: :td: :td: :td:

It was not so directed. Was referencing your attribution in post 7

it is a class warfare myth perpetrated by a certain political segment, for political reasons

this thread is only referencing the US?

it is a class warfare myth perpetrated by a certain political segment, for political reasons

Is the reason you won't be more specific because to do so would be embarrassing?

Well, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-deserts-and-obesity-challenged-in-studies.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all), this bit of conventional wisdom, may not be so.



We eat out or order in 3-4 nights a week. With two busy kids: Ballet, Orchestra, Gymnastics, Tap classes, Choir, Play practice and other activities, we often find ourselves away from, or just arriving at home at dinner time.

We like home cooked meals, actually prefer them. Both my wife and I can cook. But, our lifestyle doesn't always make it practical.



I feel pretty certain magiciansampras is not coming from a racist place...not implying that you meant to tarnish him with this label.

He and I disagree about just everything judging from our posts over in the omni world. But, I find it quite distasteful when someone feels compelled to raise the issue of racism in a discussion where there is no evidence those engaged in the discussion are coming from such a place.


How are the prices in those little markets compared to big supermarkets?

How are the prices in those little markets compared to big supermarkets?

Cheaper, IME in the Bronx.

1. $27 for 4 people at McDs? That's almost $7 a person.You can get things off the $1 menu at McDondald's and feed 4 people for about $12-15 if you wanted to. Or if you wanted a combo meal, you can have several for $4/5.

2. You're comparing a restaurant vs. buying groceries. Of course the restaurant will be more.

A better comparison would be

a) ingredients to make hamburgers and fries at home vs. ingerdients to make chicken/potatoes at home. OFr $13 you could buy ground beef and potatoess which would be cheaper than chicken and potatoes.

or

b) the McDonald's stuff vs. a restaurant meal of chicken and potatoes. And I will guarantee you 4 people aren't eating chicken and potatoes at a restaurant for $13. $10/head is a minimum for any type of meal like that, even at a Chili's

magiciansampras, apparently I'm one of the few who knows where you're coming from here, and knows about 'the myth'. For many years, hardly a week goes by when I don't hear or read a direct quote from someone stating "It's cheaper to feed my family fast food than to cook at home". Not "too busy", not "easier", not "faster". Cheaper. It is a myth, and it's wrong.

magiciansampras, apparently I'm one of the few who knows where you're coming from here, and knows about 'the myth'. For many years, hardly a week goes by when I don't hear or read a direct quote from someone stating "It's cheaper to feed my family fast food than to cook at home". Not "too busy", not "easier", not "faster". Cheaper. It is a myth, and it's wrong.

At least I'm not the only crazy person here! :)

magiciansampras, apparently I'm one of the few who knows where you're coming from here, and knows about 'the myth'. For many years, hardly a week goes by when I don't hear or read a direct quote from someone stating "It's cheaper to feed my family fast food than to cook at home". Not "too busy", not "easier", not "faster". Cheaper. It is a myth, and it's wrong.

It's not necessarily wrong though.

If I have $15 in my pocket, I can go to Taco Bell with my family of 4 and each get 3 things off the Dollar menu ... Add in a giant soda or sweet tea to share (which McD's also sells on the dollar menu ... otherwise water) , and even after tax, I still have some change left over and my family is full. If I had small kids, I could pull it off for under $10.

I "might" be able to pull off that chicken meal in the photo with the same $15 in my pocket ... but only if I had at least one of the ingredients already.

It's not necessarily wrong though.


Would agree that the myth is probably at the very least overstated?

magiciansampras, apparently I'm one of the few who knows where you're coming from here, and knows about 'the myth'. For many years, hardly a week goes by when I don't hear or read a direct quote from someone stating "It's cheaper to feed my family fast food than to cook at home". Not "too busy", not "easier", not "faster". Cheaper. It is a myth, and it's wrong.

Depends on the accounting doesn't it? Seriously. Time for grocery shopping, maybe more gas to go shopping, although not always. Then time for cooking and cleaning up. Time really is money.

I think the real issue isn't whether fast food is cheaper or not. I think the real issue is that crappy processed food is cheaper than good, unprocessed food. I practically lived on boxed macaroni and cheese and pot pies when I was a poor grad student. They were dirt cheap, way less than buying non processed food. Hell, my wife and I have joked about how excited we were once when the premium level mac and cheese in a box went on sale and we could afford it rather than the base level stuff.

Is the reason you won't be more specific because to do so would be embarrassing?
i didnt read the thread so missed the racism stuff, but this is clearly heading to OMNI/PR

Time really is money.


Another myth I should explore. Is it really? How is time money for the poor and middle class? You think instead of cooking these folks are spending the extra 30 minutes working? How does cooking for 30 minutes cost them money?

i didnt read the thread so missed the racism stuff, but this is clearly heading to OMNI/PR

I hope not. You seem to be the one intent on sending it there. It shouldn't be a political issue.

Even faster with a pressure cooker. :)

Faster still with a can opener.

I speak from experience, BTW. Back in graduate school I was on limited funds. My budget allowed for beans--actually, I did cook dried beans usually, using leftover ham bone from preceding week, but otherwise I opened a can--canned beans, canned tuna, adding probably lettuce to the weekly purchase and dried milk. I think I recall buying oranges too, and probably bought canned spinach. I usually bought Wonder Bread--or whatever the brand was back then--and occasionally made biscuits, since flour was inexpensive. I would have used powdered milk in making them, however, and would have used margarine, not butter, on them.

Taking a larger perspective: The world has long survived without fast food restaurants and without pretentious "organic" foods at stratospheric prices. This is a very new issue.

Another myth I should explore. Is it really? How is time money for the poor and middle class? You think instead of cooking these folks are spending the extra 30 minutes working? How does cooking for 30 minutes cost them money?

I think you are over thinking. People working 8 or 10 hours a day are tired. Again, I think the real issue is types of food in grocery stores. Processed is cheaper. The restaurant versus home cooking is a stawman.

I speak from experience, BTW. Back in graduate school I was on limited funds. My budget allowed for beans--actually, I did cook dried beans usually, using leftover ham bone from preceding week, but otherwise I opened a can--canned tuna, probably lettuce, and dried milk. I think I recall buying oranges too, and probably bought canned spinach. I usually bought Wonder Bread--or whatever the brand was back then--and occasionally made biscuits, since flour was inexpensive. I would have used powdered milk in making them, however, and margarine, not butter.


All of which I'm sure was a lot healthier than McD's. ^

Canned tuna + lettuce is a pretty good meal, in my book.

I think you are over thinking.

That's better than the opposite accusation. :)



People working 8 or 10 hours a day are tired.

I get that. And I get how for an attorney who can bill his time or a professor who can write another article or computer programmer who can write another program and get paid, then the time is money thing works. But I think the segment of the population we're talking about here, the folks that are having to make hard decisions about where to spend their budget of $15 for dinner, this time is money thing simply isn't true. Are they tired? Absolutely. Do they perhaps not want to put in the effort to cook? Sure. But that doesn't mean their time is money, it just means they have different preferences and priorities, which is fine.

uh, apparently people brought up race? i sure didnt.

i agreed with OP that its a myth.

only thing ill say re food prices is you can get a freshly cooked whole chicken at a number of grocery stores for under $10, thats the best example i would use, from my limited experience

people value different things a different amount - "afford" is absolutely a ridiculous concept, especially in the US

who cares what people spend on? as long as "afford" isnt being used outside the context of an individual's choices - "i can't afford x BECAUSE i buy Y etc" (whether spending money or time etc)


Taking a larger perspective: The world has long survived without fast food restaurants and without pretentious "organic" foods at stratospheric prices. This is a very new issue.
indeed, (that) is a first world "rich people problem" started as ideological, then became commercial as well as political (to the point of it becoming a special interest lobby)

That's better than the opposite accusation. :)




I get that. And I get how for an attorney who can bill his time or a professor who can write another article or computer programmer who can write another program and get paid, then the time is money thing works. But I think the segment of the population we're talking about here, the folks that are having to make hard decisions about where to spend their budget of $15 for dinner, this time is money thing simply isn't true. Are they tired? Absolutely. Do they perhaps not want to put in the effort to cook? Sure. But that doesn't mean their time is money, it just means they have different preferences and priorities, which is fine.


Well, for me it is but I agree I can be different. But again, I think comparing restaurants to at home is not the relevant issue. It is quality vs crap within restaurants or at home. That is where there is a real differential. Have you read any of Michael Pollans books? You should if you haven't.

Well, for me it is but I agree I can be different. But again, I think comparing restaurants to at home is not the relevant issue. It is quality vs crap within restaurants or at home. That is where there is a real differential. Have you read any of Michael Pollans books? You should if you haven't.

Yep, I've read all of the ones that made the bestseller list. Two? Three? They run together.

I definitely think quality vs. crap is a big distinction. But I, like some other posters in this thread, also hear this financial justification for fast food quite often.

Parents who rely on picking up fast food regularly on the way home from work wish they could afford to pick up or have delivered a better quality meal, or a family member able to stay home and cook. Of course they would prefer to afford higher quality food at the grocery store and put a healthy meal on the table every single night, but they have to make do with the time and money they have. Too much moral superiority here. Could you really do it better if you were dog tired at night after working some mundane job, raising kids, working harder for a lot less money than most on FT?

The myth as stated in the title says nothing about fast food. It only talks about healthy food and rich people.

I'm with GadgetFreak that the real question isn't about whether you can produce a meal at home more cheaply than going to McDonalds. It really is about whether it costs more to feed a family a healthy meal, or to feed them boxed macaroni and cheese and similar processed products.

You can make a point about McDonald's being more expensive, but it doesn't really address the issue mentioned in the title of the thread.

Parents who rely on picking up fast food regularly on the way home from work wish they could afford to pick up or have delivered a better quality meal, or a family member able to stay home and cook. Of course they would prefer to afford higher quality food at the grocery store and put a healthy meal on the table every single night, but they have to make do with the time and money they have. Too much moral superiority here. Could you really do it better if you were dog tired at night after working some mundane job, raising kids, working harder for a lot less money than most on FT?

It's not about morals, it's about capabilities.

i live in an overwhelmingly black(90%) very middle class community. i am very impressed by their efforts to avoid "wrong" foods. and cook healthy. chicken and fish dominate the meat courses, and there is a lot of fresh produce in the diet. sam's club told me they roasted over 450 chickens a night.

a roasted chicken is$5-6and feeds 4

I blame the south for America's obesity problems. They all own the job title down there - Professional Obese. They sure know how to keep the weight on too, like a competition.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying there are costs to cooking that need to be incorporated into the analysis?

Ah, domestic labor is free in your world, or working people have unlimited time to treat both shopping and cooking as recreation. Stoves are free. Refrigerators are free. Pots and pans are free as well?

Not to mention that if you've got a small household (as others have already mentioned) smaller packages and spoilage/wastage can make ingredient costs much higher than a family who can buy in larger quantities.

If you're eating beans and rice because that's what you can afford... you probably don't have a pressure cooker.

Never was that broke, but it does depend on what and how you like to cook; my wife had a pressure cooker (not sure if it was a hand me down or from a thrift store) back when she was in college and ALMOST that broke. :)

People look at cooking as work rather than a pastime. So, they come home from "work" and now have to "work" in the kitchen and then have to "work" with their kids and so on.

Damn right it's work; some people happen to enjoy it, but it's certainly work.

Then this just means you don't buy into the myth to start with. The whole point of the myth is that it suggests that it is *cheaper* to eat at restaurants than cook at home.

For fast food, relative to the same foods at home, it may not be that far off.

a) ingredients to make hamburgers and fries at home vs. ingerdients to make chicken/potatoes at home. OFr $13 you could buy ground beef and potatoess which would be cheaper than chicken and potatoes.

Not to mention that with the chichen, the costs go way up if you buy the easier to cook and generally easier to get people to eat pre-cut servings (not a lot of dark-meat fans left around, IME.) A whole chicken is $5 for several pounds; boneless breasts can be well over $5/lb at some shops, and while a nutritionist would probably call a pound "4 servings," it's a bit more tenuous with actual adults.

Given some of the failures my wife has come up with trying to cook a whole chicken, or trying to separate the parts and cooking them separately, it's not the easiest thing for an unskilled cook.

i live in an overwhelmingly black(90%) very middle class community. i am very impressed by their efforts to avoid "wrong" foods. and cook healthy. chicken and fish dominate the meat courses, and there is a lot of fresh produce in the diet. sam's club told me they roasted over 450 chickens a night.

a roasted chicken is$5-6and feeds 4


In my experience, it's not race. It's class/education, but that's another matter.

Unfortunately, there are those in the "eating healthy" camp who also can be food snobs. That attitude can be off-putting to those looking to overhaul their lifestyle and/or have a limited budget and are BOMBARDED with the attitude that if meat and produce are not organic, it may as well be batter fried garbage.

No one really believes that only the rich can afford healthy food. Somehow, the thought that only a select wealthy few have access to such precious resources as fruits and vegetables is, to me, a non-starter. Here in the US, the federal government's food stamp program (these days called SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) gives financial access to all types of food to the poor. Similarly, the US government's cheap-food policy subsidizes various crops, making a wide variety of supermarket food cheaper than, say, in Europe.

I live in a part of the rural South where nearly 20% of families currently receive food stamps. They can spend their benefits on nearly any unprepared food, but I see a lot of processed food, frozen food, and junk food in those shopping carts, not so many fruits and vegetables.

On the other hand, I know one family receiving food stamps that buys only organic produce and high-quality food (at least high-quality in relation to what's available in this area). Sure, poor folks have access to quality food if they're willing to expend the time and effort to prepare it.

Unfortunately, a somewhat significant chunk of the population has no interest in learning how to cook, when processed/frozen foods give a perceived similar end-result with much less investment of time and energy.

The fresh seasonal food that costs more money and time to use...that was the diet of rural people a couple of generations ago, grown themselves with physical work. The richer urbanite and suburbanite now eats from farmer's markets and Wild Oats and works out at a gym or runs. The children and grandchildren of the rural working class who used to grow good food a couple of generations ago have become employed off the farm (or in this economy unemployed) growing fat on cheap processed foods. Their kids develop a taste for the processed food, what kid wouldn't want pizza? So when Mom does put fresh vegetables on the table, it goes to waste. And it is such a shame.

Ah, domestic labor is free in your world, or working people have unlimited time to treat both shopping and cooking as recreation.

I think one's own cooking is basically free labor, yes. I don't buy into this "time is money" hooey when it comes to the poor and lower middle class. What are they going to be doing with their time that is so valuable? What is the opportunity cost here? Can you quantify it?

And the other excuses are simply those, excuses. The myth isn't that it is easier to cook at home. @:-)


Stoves are free. Refrigerators are free. Pots and pans are free as well?

The first two come with even the most modest accommodations, including projects (at least in New York, YMMV). Pots and pans can be easily entered into the calculus; I doubt they add much.

Do the math.

$27.89x7x52=$10,151.96 just for dinner for a family of 4.

$7.25x40x52=$15,080.00 annual income at minimum wage.

So only *rich* people can afford to eat at McDonald's every night?

So only *rich* people can afford to eat at McDonald's every night?

Of course not, but that wasn't the point. No one was trying to say that only the rich can eat at McDonald's. The question is, can only the rich afford healthy food?

: [snip]
I live in a part of the rural South where nearly 20% of families currently receive food stamps. They can spend their benefits on nearly any unprepared food, but I see a lot of processed food, frozen food, and junk food in those shopping carts, not so many fruits and vegetables.

On the other hand, I know one family receiving food stamps that buys only organic produce and high-quality food (at least high-quality in relation to what's available in this area). Sure, poor folks have access to quality food if they're willing to expend the time and effort to prepare it.

Unfortunately, a somewhat significant chunk of the population has no interest in learning how to cook, when processed/frozen foods give a perceived similar end-result with much less investment of time and energy.

Thank you for an interesting post.

I am wondering--per my prior post--if some of this is a generational thing, if perhaps "survival skills" have not filtered down to the current generation. Some of my older relatives live in rural areas and grow their own tomatoes and corn and until recently owned cows and had home-churned butter. Probably they grow okra and perhaps blackeyed or purple-hull peas as well. I know I have seen them preparing green beans for canning.

One of the younger ones--i.e., my generation :D -- [have a sense of humor, people :D ] I have seen snapping green beans for canning. I recall that she had also mentioned canning homemade salsa. She also has a job in the nearby community and cares for family members. I hinted that I wouldn't object to a spare jar of those green beans :D but was told that she was making them for her church sale.

TV program a few weeks (?) ago had some segment on the Royal Family's lands being used for cultivation of crops so as to set an example to the nation during the food shortages of WWII.

My mother told of the privations of growing up on a farm during the Depression and of how neighbors helped one another to keep their children fed. Then there were filtered-down memories of great-grandparents, of near-starvation during the Civil War, when troops from both sides ravaged fields, leaving nothing except root vegetables for the farm families.

Probably not any point to the above except that the obtaining and preparing of food has often been difficult. In our era it is relatively easier--though someone with a commuting schedule and long work hours and a large family might well disagree--but, in addition, there is now the concomitant problem that much readily available and visually tempting food is not optimally nutritious nor is it calorically optimal.

Probably not any point to the above except that the obtaining and preparing of food has often been difficult. In our era it is relatively easier--though someone with a commuting schedule and long work hours and a large family might well disagree--but, in addition, there is now the concomitant problem that much readily available and visually tempting food is not optimally nutritious nor is it calorically optimal.

And this may be a big part of it. My parents' and grandparents' generations had vegetable gardens, and when fresh food was abundant, they shared with the neighbors and canned what they could. It's become so easy to get instant gratification with nearly any type of food - both healthy and junk -available year-round that home gardening doesn't seem as popular (or necessary) as they used to be. Add that to the fact that so many of us live in cities, where good food is more abundant than ever, but home gardening is, ironically, difficult to near-impossible.

I think one's own cooking is basically free labor, yes. I don't buy into this "time is money" hooey when it comes to the poor and lower middle class. What are they going to be doing with their time that is so valuable? What is the opportunity cost here? Can you quantify it?

Seriously? :td::td::td: I've worked 3 jobs (per day) in the past. Any time I spent cooking and not working was directly money lost (or meant I was only sleeping 3-4 hours per night). Must be nice that the idea is so foreign it seems inconceivable, but it'd be cool if you'd refrain from calling my life 'hooey' simply because you're wealthy enough to pretend that it is.

Of course not, but that wasn't the point. No one was trying to say that only the rich can eat at McDonald's. The question is, can only the rich afford healthy food?

The article was brief, the examples ridiculous. My only take-away (pun intended), was that it would require a lot of income to support $850 a month just for dinners. I agree it was not the *intended* point-- it was the most obvious.

Seriously? :td::td::td: I've worked 3 jobs (per day) in the past. Any time I spent cooking and not working was directly money lost (or meant I was only sleeping 3-4 hours per night).

What types of jobs were these? Please be more specific. I'm trying to figure out how cooking for 30 minutes vs. going to to McD's made a significant difference in your financial life.

Of course people can buy fruits and vegetables instead of junk food, but the fact that junk/processed food is more filling plays a big role too.

Here in one of the large supermarkets, for 2€ you can buy a 500-gram bag of spinach (total of 120 calories) or a 900-gram box of 3 frozen cheese pizzas (total of 1926 calories). For a shopper on a very tight budget, which choice will keep the kids from leaving the table feeling hungry?

Of course people can buy fruits and vegetables instead of junk food, but the fact that junk/processed food is more filling plays a big role too.

Here in one of the large supermarkets, for 2€ you can buy a 500-gram bag of spinach (total of 120 calories) or a 900-gram box of 3 frozen cheese pizzas (total of 1926 calories). For a shopper on a very tight budget, which choice will keep the kids from leaving the table feeling hungry?

Any time a poster from Paris posts the benefits of processed foods, we know we're all in trouble! :D

I blame the south for America's obesity problems. They all own the job title down there - Professional Obese. They sure know how to keep the weight on too, like a competition.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

... But I think the segment of the population we're talking about here, the folks that are having to make hard decisions about where to spend their budget of $15 for dinner, this time is money thing simply isn't true. Are they tired? Absolutely. Do they perhaps not want to put in the effort to cook? Sure. But that doesn't mean their time is money, it just means they have different preferences and priorities, which is fine.

What would be more useful than speculation would be to actually ask low-income folks these questions and get some real data. @:-)

Of course people can buy fruits and vegetables instead of junk food, but the fact that junk/processed food is more filling plays a big role too.

Here in one of the large supermarkets, for 2€ you can buy a 500-gram bag of spinach (total of 120 calories) or a 900-gram box of 3 frozen cheese pizzas (total of 1926 calories). For a shopper on a very tight budget, which choice will keep the kids from leaving the table feeling hungry?

Seriously--I am genuinely curious--are there low-cost alternatives to frozen pizza that might be no less unhealthful but equally filling?

Families in the past, without access to frozen prepared foods, might have served potatoes, gravy, butter, along with vegetables, milk, and perhaps meat. (Bear with me for speaking only of my personal experience, not all of which might be transferable. I understand that you are from Paris--lucky you! ^ ) Anyhow, families have faced the problem of hungry teenagers before. It seems that if someone is nutritionally deprived, that person is going to feel hungry and to seek out more and more food--with, unfortunately, that food being deficient in nutrition. I don't know and am not an expert. I do believe that foods need to feel "filling," and that fast foods meet that need in terms of bulk and calories, but they seem to set up a cycle if they scant on the nutritional requirement as well. I.e., that foods, or at least one of the meals a day, need to have (1) bulk, consisting of both fiber and some degree of fat, (2), calories (a given, if the meal contains any fat), and (3), nutrition. which I assume generally means a variety of vegetables and fruit as well as milk and protein.

Anyhow--Just wondering.

What would be more useful than speculation would be to actually ask low-income folks these questions and get some real data. @:-)

What am I supposed to ask them, "is time money in your case?"

magiciansampras, apparently I'm one of the few who knows where you're coming from here, and knows about 'the myth'. For many years, hardly a week goes by when I don't hear or read a direct quote from someone stating "It's cheaper to feed my family fast food than to cook at home". Not "too busy", not "easier", not "faster". Cheaper. It is a myth, and it's wrong.

^^^

Seriously--I am genuinely curious--are there low-cost alternatives to frozen pizza that might be no less unhealthful but equally filling?

It's a good question and I'm equally curious to know the answers. I used that particular example just to compare prices of a nutritious vegetable versus junk food (because at that price, really, I doubt the pale melty bits on top of the pizzas are real cheese). While food is generally cheaper in the US, the principle is the same. I've never been rich but I have been poor, and I can definitely say people with more money have more options.

Is it cheaper to eat fast food than to cook at home? With McDo's dollar menu or a Subway 2€ sub, yes, it can be, especially for only one person. It seems like the more people you're feeding, the greater the potential savings when cooking at home.

I'm not going to read through all six pages right now, but in many poor areas, especially in large cities in the U.S., there are no nearby grocery stores that sell fresh produce, just convenience stores and fast food outlets, and only poor public transit options.

Furthermore, many school districts cut out home economics classes (cooking and sewing) for being "expensive frills" decades ago, so younger poor people may never have had any training in how to cook from scratch.

I once belonged to a food co-op that was located near both affluent and poor neighborhoods, and one of the excellent services it provided was free classes in how to cook from scratch on a low budget. But such efforts are all too rare.

Seriously--I am genuinely curious--are there low-cost alternatives to frozen pizza that might be no less unhealthful but equally filling?

Maybe the British meal of beans on toast--gotta be filling. And perhaps a fried egg sandwich--cheap, easy and the choline in egg yolks is so vital. I think of milk as a food, not a beverage, so it can be a meal with some fruit and whey powder added. 4 oz of chopped sirloin as a burger for less than $1.50. Uncle Sam cereal and berries with milk or soy--full for hours plus the Omega 3 of flax. Cottage cheese and veggies. I think the key is what makes *you* feel satisfied, and that's giving your body nutrients it needs. It would be easy if nutrition was taught in grade school. (Along with finance).

What types of jobs were these? Please be more specific. I'm trying to figure out how cooking for 30 minutes vs. going to to McD's made a significant difference in your financial life.

No you weren't, you were calling the idea that time is money 'hooey'. That's what I responded to. Further, you have no understanding of the reality of '30 minutes of cooking'. How long did it take to get the groceries? 2 hours? longer? How many meals are you presuming someone eats a day? :rolleyes:

What am I supposed to ask them, "is time money in your case?"

It's up to you; you started the thread and have kept it going. If there is any published research in which folks were surveyed about this at a variety of income levels, that might be helpful too.

you have no understanding of the reality of '30 minutes of cooking'.
^

30 minutes meals are as big a myth as anything else.

McDonalds - order, eat, throw away the wrappers

Cooking - plan, shop, prep, cook, eat, clear table, do dishes, clean up kitchen

Seriously--I am genuinely curious--are there low-cost alternatives to frozen pizza that might be no less unhealthful but equally filling?

Families in the past, without access to frozen prepared foods, might have served potatoes, gravy, butter, along with vegetables, milk, and perhaps meat. (Bear with me for speaking only of my personal experience, not all of which might be transferable. I understand that you are from Paris--lucky you! ^ ) Anyhow, families have faced the problem of hungry teenagers before. It seems that if someone is nutritionally deprived, that person is going to feel hungry and to seek out more and more food--with, unfortunately, that food being deficient in nutrition. I don't know and am not an expert. I do believe that foods need to feel "filling," and that fast foods meet that need in terms of bulk and calories, but they seem to set up a cycle if they scant on the nutritional requirement as well. I.e., that foods, or at least one of the meals a day, need to have (1) bulk, consisting of both fiber and some degree of fat, (2), calories (a given, if the meal contains any fat), and (3), nutrition. which I assume generally means a variety of vegetables and fruit as well as milk and protein.

Anyhow--Just wondering.

Fine to knock frozen prepared food, but don't knock frozen food generally. Before freezing an canning, most peoples' diet was woefully inadequate in the winter months.

The fresh seasonal food that costs more money and time to use...that was the diet of rural people a couple of generations ago, grown themselves with physical work. The richer urbanite and suburbanite now eats from farmer's markets and Wild Oats and works out at a gym or runs. The children and grandchildren of the rural working class who used to grow good food a couple of generations ago have become employed off the farm (or in this economy unemployed) growing fat on cheap processed foods. Their kids develop a taste for the processed food, what kid wouldn't want pizza? So when Mom does put fresh vegetables on the table, it goes to waste. And it is such a shame.

Now, this is a myth, too. The diet of rural people a few generations back was woefully deficient in the winter months, when they had limited access to fresh veggies. It was even worse in the cities.

I think having money opens up more choices but it's still possible to eat healthy on a small budget. Not easy mind you, but possible. It's about making things work some may not want to put the effort in or have the time.

Now, this is a myth, too. The diet of rural people a few generations back was woefully deficient in the winter months, when they had limited access to fresh veggies. It was even worse in the cities.

Not a myth. People canned. Just because a green bean or tomato is canned doesn't mean it isn't nutritious. Canned vegetables and fruits don't have preservatives and they don't take a freezer to store.

But the Mediterranean Diet is proving a myth. When Mediterranean people don't do the physical work to grow it as well as eat it, the same health problems we have start to show up.

I eat local food therefore I am rich? COOL!

Another thing the OP forgot to mention is that low income families usually do not live near a good grocery store. Having worked in many low income neighborhoods, the only thing you have is 7-Eleven's and Fast food restaurants.

Have you tried to buy milk at a 7-eleven? looking at 4 - 6 dollars a gallon, and last time I checked they did not have fresh chicken or beans.

For a poor family to travel to the local discount grocer, they often have to take a city bus 30 - 60 minutes and then in turn carry the groceries back to their low income apartments on those buses. Have you ever tried to carry 5 - 6 bags of groceries on a city bus? Another thing to note is some low income families have electricity and good tap water, others do not.

I would also mention that those McD's prices are awful high. Even in CA with high wages I can get all the food in the picture for less than $20.00 not to mention the dollar menu is ripe with cheap food.

I agree I think I could get that meal for under $20.00

No you weren't, you were calling the idea that time is money 'hooey'. That's what I responded to. Further, you have no understanding of the reality of '30 minutes of cooking'. How long did it take to get the groceries? 2 hours? longer? How many meals are you presuming someone eats a day? :rolleyes:

I have plenty of understanding of 30 minute cooking and how long it takes to shop, Mr. Rolleyes.

Feel free to point out to me the element I'm missing in this "time is money" myth.

It's up to you; you started the thread and have kept it going. If there is any published research in which folks were surveyed about this at a variety of income levels, that might be helpful too.

Feel free to show us the published data, I think that would be great. ^

throw away the wrappers


Actually hopefully recycle. @:-)

Cooking - plan, shop, prep, cook, eat, clear table, do dishes, clean up kitchenTo that we can add, for some folks (I say this on behalf of folks I know personally): have money to pay the electric bill, have a working refrigerator, have money to pay the gas bill, have a working stove.

To that we can add, for some folks (I say this on behalf of folks I know personally): have money to pay the electric bill, have a working refrigerator, have money to pay the gas bill, have a working stove.

Would you agree that a salad of canned tuna and lettuce/tomato is probably healthier and cheaper than eating at McD's?

^

30 minutes meals are as big a myth as anything else.

McDonalds - order, eat, throw away the wrappers

Cooking - plan, shop, prep, cook, eat, clear table, do dishes, clean up kitchen

McDonald's has emerged as a metonym for the fast-food industry and for processed food in general.

FWIW, I can microwave a Banquet TV dinner--chicken-fried steak with potatoes and gravy and corn--in a few minutes and feel not at all hungry for 2-3 hours after, especially if I have a glass of milk with the TV dinner. OTOH, I feel hungry immediately after I leave a McDonald's (or whatever), and that's whether I order from the dollar menu or from the regular menus.

BTW: Has anyone noted that Burger King has a summer special of three different types of barbeque Whoppers? Make that six, if one adds in the chicken options. Maybe they wouldn't make it over into the "Best BBQ" thread, but they are fun! Whooey!

Sorry. (subdued expression). Anyhow--driving over to the fast-food places does take time, and it is a lot more convenient for me just to microwave, if I am in a hurry.

FWIW. As always. ;)

What types of jobs were these? Please be more specific. I'm trying to figure out how cooking for 30 minutes vs. going to to McD's made a significant difference in your financial life.

Cooking anything worth eating in 30 minutes requires prep time and/or shopping time not included in that figure.

Cooking anything worth eating in 30 minutes requires prep time and/or shopping time not included in that figure.

It may or it may not. One may shop all at once on the weekend, for example, in which case the shopping time is spread across meals throughout the week, adding very little. Further some healthy meals recall almost no cooking time at all. Tuna fish salad, for example, can be made in approximately 2.5 minutes. I think 30 minutes is a good average figure. What do you think is a good average figure?

Again though I'm still trying to figure out how "time is money" applies to the poor and lower middle class. Let's assume it takes 60 minutes to cook a good meal. How is that lost hour affecting the household bottom line?

Cooking anything worth eating in 30 minutes requires prep time and/or shopping time not included in that figure.

Foodie?

Foodie?

Hell if they can do it on Top Chef in the quickfire... ;)

It may or it may not. One may shop all at once on the weekend, for example, in which case the shopping time is spread across meals throughout the week, adding very little. Further some healthy meals recall almost no cooking time at all. Tuna fish salad, for example, can be made in approximately 2.5 minutes. I think 30 minutes is a good average figure. What do you think is a good average figure?

Again though I'm still trying to figure out how "time is money" applies to the poor and lower middle class. Let's assume it takes 60 minutes to cook a good meal. How is that lost hour affecting the household bottom line?

While I can see where " time is money" doesn't apply to the poor in a literal sense, time does have a value. That 60 minutes of lost time may not have a effect on the bottom line but it may make a difference in other ways.

While I can see where " time is money" doesn't apply to the poor in a literal sense, time does have a value. That 60 minutes of lost time may not have a effect on the bottom line but it may make a difference in other ways.

I don't disagree with this. ^

Answering the question of a nutritious yet easy to fix and cheap home cooked meal that kids and teens will fill up on instead of pizza: good old spaghetti with meat sauce secretly enhanced with finely chopped vegetables. 3 big cans crushed tomatoes, 1 lb ground beef browned and drained of fat, onion, green pepper, carrots for the basics but zuchinni and celery work too, garlic either fresh or powdered, oil, Italian seasoning or your own herbs, red pepper, salt and pepper. This will make enough for two big meals, freeze half. I don't chop, I use 1 package frozen mirepoix vegetables, 1 pkg green peppers, 1 pkg onion.

Making enough to freeze half is a real saver of time and money.

Foodie?

Hardly.

This thread was a fun read. I would say that cooking at home is no more expensive or time-consuming than eating fast food, provided you have made the initial investment in skills and supplies. You need to have the proper pots and pans, and you need to have the proper knowledge. After that, it is just as easy to swing by the supermarket and pick up a few things for dinner once a week as it is to swing by McDonalds, and once you are competent in the kitchen, cooking doesn't take very long and can often be done simultaneously with other things like watching TV or spending time with your family. The problem is that many people don't want to spend a little time and money setting up this system, so they just take the path of instant gratification and get fast food without thinking of the long-term consequences.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lUhfZmUWjxE/T9odIfqGvmI/AAAAAAAAAig/214oUVV_jZ4/s1600/food+prices.jpg

http://healthynewdawn.com/2012/06/15/only-rich-people-can-afford-healthy-food-the-myth/

While I like the graphic and I do think it makes a good point, I'm not necessarily convinced that better food isn't more expensive in the long run. Organics, for example, will tend to be more expensive surely.

Whether fast food is cheaper or more expensive than home cooked food depends on a lot of factors, however this comparison fails to account for long term costs and negative externalities associated with the consumption of unhealthy foods.

If one considers the long term costs of poor health (however this can be quantified), as well as cost incurred by society due to negative externalities associated with the fast food industry, I am quite certain that the true cost of eating fast food is astronomically higher than the cost of eating healthier home cooked foods (or otherwise locally produced freshly prepared foods).

Cooking - plan, shop, prep, cook, eat, clear table, do dishes, clean up kitchen

Plan: Once every week. (or two)
Shop: Once every week. (or two)
Cook, do dishes, clean kitchen: 2 or 3 nights per week, microwaved leftovers other nights.

We (2 of us) eat 95% of our meals at home when not traveling and have done this for over 30 years. Some of the early years on $5 per day, with little to no processed food. (today's dollars). Even now, eating pretty much whatever we want, average of $10/day covers it.

I understand many people don't have the savvy, and education is necessary, but we learned real quick. Or we would have starved.

There's a big difference between eating "home-made" unhealthy food and eating McDonald's - and at least in my BSc days, 'home-made unhealthy' was substantially cheaper than the healthy meals portrayed in the first page. Fresh vegetables* and chicken? Come on, by eating dried pasta, frozen french fries and other cheap carbs you end up spending much less money.
In those days, even 5$ per day can be a lot.

I do agree that in the long term eating healthy can be more cost effective, however, not everyone is in a position to make that choice..

*Some vegetables might be cheap sometimes, but seeing as you need to either buy them every week/throw them out when they go bad, you end up wasting more money.

[My apologies to those who might've said this already, I didn't read the whole thread]

There's a big difference between eating "home-made" unhealthy food and eating McDonald's - and at least in my BSc days, 'home-made unhealthy' was substantially cheaper than the healthy meals portrayed in the first page. Fresh vegetables* and chicken? Come on, by eating dried pasta, frozen french fries and other cheap carbs you end up spending much less money.
In those days, even 5$ per day can be a lot.

I do agree that in the long term eating healthy can be more cost effective, however, not everyone is in a position to make that choice..

*Some vegetables might be cheap sometimes, but seeing as you need to either buy them every week/throw them out when they go bad, you end up wasting more money.

[My apologies to those who might've said this already, I didn't read the whole thread]


There are plenty of simple meals.

I could name so many things that legit take 10 minutes and is healthy. Even if cooking, you could do salmon with eggs. Or Have chicken breast with veggies and or salad.

Every time I go to the store, some 300lb lady has 12 cases of coke in her shopping cart with the dorito's fun size pack, the only thing you can do is laugh.

Not saying you can't eat that CRAP but...

It is all about moderations, portion controls, and cutting out the BAD CARBS and starches. Until then, everyone that keeps drinking their diet coke, stops eating pizza like they are in a pizza eating competition (ordering 2 times a week or more) and start exercising, oh and stop eating french fries because they are not a vegetable, nor is ketchup, until then people in America will be FAT and FATTER.

[snip]
*Some vegetables might be cheap sometimes, but seeing as you need to either buy them every week/throw them out when they go bad, you end up wasting more money.

[snip]

What about canned vegetables? Generations prior made do with them. I'm not saying they are palatable, but food doesn't necessarily have to tempt one into second servings. All it has to do is to nourish a person, and preferably not by adding other problems to the issue. Canned spinach, canned beans, etc., still reside on the shelves in my pantry.

They are also quick to use. I don't even necessarily microwave them. Would for family members but not necessarily for myself.

Not saying that others should do this. I trust that we are arguing principles only as to cost-convenience-health, and am sticking to that. (As a matter of fact, I think that by now I have lost track of the initial point of this thread. :D )

Just a gentle reminder: we are not going down the road of insulting overweight people, attributing motives to them, disparaging them, etc., etc. There are far, far too many threads on FT that do that and if this becomes one of them it will be closed.

cblaisd
Moderator, Dining Buzz

krpjr, last time I checked, salmon wasn't exceptionally cheap..

What about canned vegetables? Generations prior made do with them. I'm not saying they are palatable, but food doesn't necessarily have to tempt one into second servings. All it has to do is to nourish a person, and preferably not by adding other problems to the issue. Canned spinach, canned beans, etc., still reside on the shelves in my pantry.

They are also quick to use. I don't even necessarily microwave them. Would for family members but not necessarily for myself.

Not saying that others should do this. I trust that we are arguing principles only as to cost-convenience-health, and am sticking to that. (As a matter of fact, I think that by now I have lost track of the initial point of this thread. :D )
Canned vegetables can be good, but I was referring mostly to the OP which had fresh vegetables. Either way, you can't beat dried pasta/rice in price/meal.

Either way, you can't beat dried pasta/rice in price/meal.

Depending on the store brown rice can be cheaper and is certainly more nutritious. ^

It makes up in nutrition what it lacks in taste. ;)

It makes up in nutrition what it lacks in taste. ;)

Really? I think brown rice tastes better than white rice, but YMMV. Different mouth feel for sure.

Both are improved with a dollop or two of high-quality shoyu (soy sauce).

Both are improved with a dollop or two of high-quality shoyu (soy sauce).

Or Cholula hot sauce (which I put on basically everything)! :D

There are plenty of simple meals.

I could name so many things that legit take 10 minutes and is healthy. Even if cooking, you could do salmon with eggs. Or Have chicken breast with veggies and or salad.

Every time I go to the store, some 300lb lady has 12 cases of coke in her shopping cart with the dorito's fun size pack, the only thing you can do is laugh.

Not saying you can't eat that CRAP but...

It is all about moderations, portion controls, and cutting out the BAD CARBS and starches. Until then, everyone that keeps drinking their diet coke, stops eating pizza like they are in a pizza eating competition (ordering 2 times a week or more) and start exercising, oh and stop eating french fries because they are not a vegetable, nor is ketchup, until then people in America will be FAT and FATTER.


The point is that those bad carbs are cheap.

Depending on the store brown rice can be cheaper and is certainly more nutritious. ^

And longer to cook

One of the real problems with the US as a whole is people don't have a clear idea of what is good and bad for them to eat. Advertising pushes a lot of stuff that is really not good. But advertising is effective.

Depending on the store brown rice can be cheaper and is certainly more nutritious. ^

And longer to cook. [snip]

The following is the label from a package of microwavable brown rice in my pantry:
"Minute Ready to Serve! Natural Whole Grain Brown Rice/ Fully Cooked/ Microwaveable"

Sold at your neighborhood grocery. Microwaves in one minute. It does have some sunflower oil added, so I wouldn't argue that it is better than the traditional brown rice, but it is close enough.

I do have to remove the plastic top before microwaving, so there is some work involved, but I manage.

:D

If one considers the long term costs of poor health (however this can be quantified), as well as cost incurred by society due to negative externalities associated with the fast food industry, I am quite certain that the true cost of eating fast food is astronomically higher than the cost of eating healthier home cooked foods (or otherwise locally produced freshly prepared foods).

I don't think there are many here who would dispute that, but people most people don't make decisions based on the costs to society, they make them based on the costs to themselves. Also,when you are poor, you often make decisions based on what you can afford today. Do I go let my kids go hungry today, or do I give them a meal that some scientist thinks causes them harm 10-20 years from now?

So, if the theory is true that it costs more today to feed a family a healthy meal than an unhealthy one, people will choose it, even if they might choose the healthy meal if the price point was equal.

I don't know if a legitimate study has been done of this, rather than the straw man argument which was posited at the beginning of this thread to determine either way.

So we are back to the original point that people eat what they can afford. Richer people are eating better quality foods whether they eat out or at home, and richer people are more likely to exercize regularly.

It used to be that a high percentage of America's working class grew big gardens and ate lots of vegetables because that was the most affordable way to feed themselves. Working in the garden was exercize. Not so different than the Mediterranean diet, both heavy on vegetables. The original studies proving the benefits of the Med diet were done on farming families who were getting exercize growing the food, not just eating it. As that culture has evolved, just as our rural culture has evolved, the same health problems are surfacing. Heart, obesity, diabetes.

With both man and wife working, or a single income household, and with easy availability of cheap food that is quick to throw on the table, people don't grow gardens anymore unless they just enjoy it. I enjoy gardening but I have to say that I could buy the same amount of fresh vegetables I actually use cheaper in the grocery store. Not cheaper from the farmer's market, though.

I don't think there are many here who would dispute that, but people most people don't make decisions based on the costs to society, they make them based on the costs to themselves. Also,when you are poor, you often make decisions based on what you can afford today. Do I go let my kids go hungry today, or do I give them a meal that some scientist thinks causes them harm 10-20 years from now?

So, if the theory is true that it costs more today to feed a family a healthy meal than an unhealthy one, people will choose it, even if they might choose the healthy meal if the price point was equal.

I don't know if a legitimate study has been done of this, rather than the straw man argument which was posited at the beginning of this thread to determine either way.

Yes, that is the key point. Add on to that a general and severe lack of understanding that most people have of the causes of the problems and you get the bad long term result.

So we are back to the original point that people eat what they can afford. Richer people are eating better quality foods whether they eat out or at home, and richer people are more likely to exercize regularly.

It used to be that a high percentage of America's working class grew big gardens and ate lots of vegetables because that was the most affordable way to feed themselves.

This keeps being said, but I am not at all convinced that it is true. Historically, the working class (not the farming class) tended to have a very poor diet. It wasn't bad the way it is now, with too many calories, but it was deficient in nutrition. The working class didn't have gardens, because they didn't have land. During the winters, fresh vegetables were limited to what could be stored in root cellars, at least in the north.

While I agree that the diet in developed nations isn't all that it could be, the opportunities for a good diet are much greater today than at most periods in history.

Yes, it is a valid point, the working class living in city apartments never did grow gardens. You do see pots of tomatoes and herbs in the city, people grow what they can. But there was a time into the 1950's when a much larger percentage of the population did grow a lot of food for themselves, giving them a better diet and more exercise while saving money at the same time. All the trendy stuff that richer people now pay a premium for at farmer's markets, they had it. The freshest seasonal vegetables, free range chickens and eggs...they were the original locavores and it was nothing special. Oh, how the tables have turned. From the rich putting the premium on fancy imported foods, French cooking and the like, the rich now value the diet the rural working class has abandoned.

IMO I think that the thread title should go from {The "Only Rich People Can Afford Healthy Food" Myth} to {The "Only Rich People Can Afford 'Healthy' Food Myth} as those examples are far from what i consider to be healthy as there are more facets to regarding such besides food intake.

If I take my severely overweight? frame to McDo (28.1 BMI), does that prove that consumption of that kind of food is the cause as to why I'm overweight? It would if one neglects that I have more muscle than the average person let alone the average American. From this, we can see that these metrics are fundamentally flawed because the whole story isn't in play which distorts what the stats are trying to prove. There are many legitimately fat people that eat fast food daily just as there are fat people who shop at whole foods and eat the so-called healthy diet.

We all know that most fast food is a hodgepodge of empty calories and questionable food sources. Yet I still see people not considered by the NIH to be obese eating that fast food or in restaurants in general. In contrast to movies like "Supersize me", most people whom I know tend to stop eating when they're full instead of continuing to gorge themselves to the point of heaving all over a parking lot. When one stops listening to their body, that is when problems tend to happen.

I certainly feel for people struggling to make ends meet but there are options to fast food. It mainly boils down to whether they consider the taste of their cooking to be value-added. If I spent an hour cooking something that was not pleasing to the palette, I'd rethink my strategy just as I'd do if I didn't feel that my time was wisely spent doing something else, either.

IMO I think that the thread title should go from {The "Only Rich People Can Afford Healthy Food" Myth} to {The "Only Rich People Can Afford 'Healthy' Food Myth} as those examples are far from what i consider to be healthy as there are more facets to regarding such besides food intake.

If I take my severely overweight? frame to McDo (28.1 BMI), does that prove that consumption of that kind of food is the cause as to why I'm overweight? It would if one neglects that I have more muscle than the average person let alone the average American. From this, we can see that these metrics are fundamentally flawed because the whole story isn't in play which distorts what the stats are trying to prove. There are many legitimately fat people that eat fast food daily just as there are fat people who shop at whole foods and eat the so-called healthy diet.

We all know that most fast food is a hodgepodge of empty calories and questionable food sources. Yet I still see people not considered by the NIH to be obese eating that fast food or in restaurants in general. In contrast to movies like "Supersize me", most people whom I know tend to stop eating when they're full instead of continuing to gorge themselves to the point of heaving all over a parking lot. When one stops listening to their body, that is when problems tend to happen.

I certainly feel for people struggling to make ends meet but there are options to fast food. It mainly boils down to whether they consider the taste of their cooking to be value-added. If I spent an hour cooking something that was not pleasing to the palette, I'd rethink my strategy just as I'd do if I didn't feel that my time was wisely spent, either.

The fact that the metrics dont apply perfectly to everyone is true, but completely irrelevant. There are certainly a large number of people who are overweight in a healthy way. As to the second point, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that there is as high a percentage of people who eat healthy food overweight as eat fast food. It just doesnt make sense in a variety of ways and I have never seen any credible claims that it is true. If one takes your argument that people eat past being full, which I agree with, as being true, that is a lot more likely to lead to being overweight if what you are eating is a 1200 calorie pack of fries than if it is broccoli.

One of the funny parts is how quickly people point to McDonalds as the culprit there, but of the major fast food chains, they've taken the most steps to provide less-unhealthy options:
* bringing back a genuinely SMALL french fries size
* providing non-fried chicken options (some variations of which are actually tasty)
* providing tasty salad options with calorie counts that aren't astronomical
* not joining the "market to the young and hungry" escalating size-of-burger wars

Does this make it healthy? No, but it does make it pretty funny to see it singled out when almost every other major national fast food chain is worse.[**]

[* no equivalent there of the triple whopper, etc etc.]
[** Subway as a notable exception; some regional ones like In'n'Out also being difficult to single out as "worse." ]

I always get a kick out of watching upper middle class people tell lower middle class people what's best for them.

well why don't they compare to
8 McD Side Salads with Grilled Chicken
4x McD Apple Slices
2x Water
2x Milk

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

I always get a kick out of watching upper middle class people tell lower middle class people what's best for them.

Does that mean you support obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and Alzheimers increases for the lower middle class? If so you should consider going into politics. The political arena always needs new ideas.

The fact that the metrics dont apply perfectly to everyone is true, but completely irrelevant. There are certainly a large number of people who are overweight in a healthy way. As to the second point, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that there is as high a percentage of people who eat healthy food overweight as eat fast food. It just doesnt make sense in a variety of ways and I have never seen any credible claims that it is true. If one takes your argument that people eat past being full, which I agree with, as being true, that is a lot more likely to lead to being overweight if what you are eating is a 1200 calorie pack of fries than if it is broccoli.

I wrote what I did due to many posts on 9 pages of this thread regarding one aspect of food that supposedly proves whatever theme that that poster is trying to convey. My point is that the argument is not that black and white.

To me, overweight in a healthy way implies that someone shouldn't be at that weight as it is not target so I disagree with that designation.

I suppose that my labored way of writing has confused you. To elaborate, I've seen larger people in the organic places as I have seen larger people in fast food restaurants. I never said that the number was equal or even representative of the overall fitness of the area or anything other than an observation that where one shops or eats does NOT tell the entire story. That was my point.

If one buys into the daily caloric intake principles, wouldn't 1200 calories of French fries have an equal chance of increasing one's weight as 1200 calories of broccoli? Nutritional advantages are another matter, I think that we can agree on that.

I wrote what I did due to many posts on 9 pages of this thread regarding one aspect of food that supposedly proves whatever theme that that poster is trying to convey. My point is that the argument is not that black and white.

To me, overweight in a healthy way implies that someone shouldn't be at that weight as it is not target so I disagree with that designation.

I suppose that my labored way of writing has confused you. To elaborate, I've seen larger people in the organic places as I have seen larger people in fast food restaurants. I never said that the number was equal or even representative of the overall fitness of the area or anything other than an observation that where one shops or eats does NOT tell the entire story. That was my point.

If one buys into the daily caloric intake principles, wouldn't 1200 calories of French fries have an equal chance of increasing one's weight as 1200 calories of broccoli? Nutritional advantages are another matter, I think that we can agree on that.

Well, if the percentage of people who are obese at the two types of stores isn't the same, what is the point? That you dont have to eat unhealthy foods to be obese? Sure, that's true but no one is arguing that as far as I can tell.

As to the 1200 calories of french fries and the 1200 calories of broccoli being equal, I think that is one of the most significant myths that is contributing to the obesity epidemic. 1200 calories of french fries is not the same as 1200 calories of broccoli. As far as I know, calories are measured in the lab. They try to convert that to how the body uses the calories but that is VERY rough and based on very old information. So it may very well not capture the real difference between how much of the calorie that is measured in the lab is is actually absorbed in the body. Perhaps even more important is the signaling that the food causes in the body. The fast impact of digesting 1200 calories of simple carbs like in fries causes very different signaling compared to a lower carb, higher complexity food. Like signaling to deposit fat due to the rush of sugar and also spiking sugar which then probably causes a drop to make the person hungry again. There is probably more complex signaling going on as well.

Oh, and 1200 calories of broccoli is over 7 pounds. That is a LOT of broccoli to stuff down. Just the time it takes to eat it will do different things to your body, and cause your body to react in different ways than an order of fries.

As to the 1200 calories of french fries and the 1200 calories of broccoli being equal, I think that is one of the most significant myths that is contributing to the obesity epidemic. 1200 calories of french fries is not the same as 1200 calories of broccoli. As far as I know, calories are measured in the lab.

Well, there are lab calories, and there are bioavailable calories. They are not the same thing; the calories on a box will be the former.

Oh, and 1200 calories of broccoli is over 7 pounds. That is a LOT of broccoli to stuff down

And that 7 pounds of broccoli is going to have a different bioavailability depending on how it's prepared; it'll be lowest cooked and wolfed down with minimal chewing, and highest if you were to cook and blend it into cooked-broccoli puree (and a lot quicker to get down, although it's likely still going to overwhelm someone eating in one sitting.)

Let's see if there is anything civil that is new or helpful to say.

cblaisd
Moderator, Dining Buzz

When I was in high school I don't think 48 hours went by without me ingesting something from McDonald's. I also drank Coke like it was water and every morning I had a cup of sugar with some coffee in it. If Michael Bloomberg knew me then he'd probably arrest me.:p And I know I wasn't alone in this. Everyone I knew at like crap.

I was also stick thin because I did this thing kids used to do back in the olden days (late 1980s) called moving. I walked (GHASP!!) to school and back. In fact I walked to school and back in middle school and even in 4th-6th grades.

I always get a kick out of watching upper middle class people tell lower middle class people what's best for them.

I understand what you're saying here. It's irritating to see upper middle class people who have never been poor themselves and who know the poor only as stereotypes prescribing "easy" solutions for poor diets. The problem is complicated, and individual circumstances vary tremendously.

If you want to solve the problem long-term, petition your local school board (especially if you live in an urban area) to require cooking and nutrition classes for both boys and girls, and if you're really affluent, fund community classes in gardening, cooking, and nutrition in low-income areas.

I once lived in a city where the local food co-op, located on the boundary between a middle class and a poor area, held periodic classes in cooking nutritious food on a low budget.

Just sniffing and deploring the poor diets that many low-income people have is not constructive.

well why don't they compare to
8 McD Side Salads with Grilled Chicken
4x McD Apple Slices
2x Water
2x Milk

McD's should run with that as an ad campaign--why spend 2-4 hours in the kitchen when you can pick up these great options. :D

Cheaper, IME in the Bronx.

NYC is not representative of most pockets of poverty-plagued neighborhoods in the US; and it is even less representative of places where car travel is far more the norm to get to/from grocery stories than is the situation in and around NYC.

For the rural poor or for the urban poor, getting cheap calories in the form of something other than "junk food" is going to take real work to achieve in a way that does not hold true for the NYC area.

I can also just look in my kitchen, see what I've got to work with, and pull something together. That takes know-how. I had a roommate that had a small repetoire of recipes that she worked with for her meal planning. You could count on everything showing up at least once in a 2 week rotation. She could have a kitchen full of food, but unless it fit one of her recipes, she had no idea what to do with it.



You don't use recipes?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)



Does that mean you support obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and Alzheimers increases for the lower middle class? If so you should consider going into politics. The political arena always needs new ideas.

To me, it's more of upper middle class people being out-of-touch with reality-at least of those in lower income levels; I could also argue that it is more about the "I know what's good for you" attitude that turns me off as well.

You don't use recipes?

Not usually.

Sometimes I'll use a recipe as a guide, particularly if I'm baking, but I don't think I've ever made a recipe exactly as it was written.

I read lots of recipes for inspiration with regards to ingredient combinations... but generally I just wing it.

If you want to solve the problem long-term, petition your local school board (especially if you live in an urban area) to require cooking and nutrition classes for both boys and girls, and if you're really affluent, fund community classes in gardening, cooking, and nutrition in low-income areas.

I once lived in a city where the local food co-op, located on the boundary between a middle class and a poor area, held periodic classes in cooking nutritious food on a low budget.


This is one of my dreams, to have programs like this that would teach teenagers and adults basic cooking skills and how to eat nutritious food on a low budget and eventually learn how to create meals from whatever's available. Ideally it would be associated with local food producers and co-ops and the creation of market basket delivery points within food deserts so everyone could get their hands on fresh, nutritious food at reasonable prices. Then, to go even further, why not build a restaurant and hire the most promising cooks from the classes, thus creating jobs? And this restaurant, still working with local suppliers, could serve nutritious food at reasonable prices to the community.

Who knows, it may have already been done, and I have no idea how to go about doing it myself, but the idea definitely appeals to me. The biggest challenge is probably funding.

Thanks ksandness, you have just reinspired me.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Well, there used to be home ec class in high school. That is from back before teaching every kid some useful life skills became old fashioned and sexist.

Well, there used to be home ec class in high school. That is from back before teaching every kid some useful life skills became old fashioned and sexist.

My school home ec classes taught me very very little indeed. I learned to cook from my mother, who insisted I help make meals etc. By the time proper home ec started (and I don't include making crispy cakes home ec!) we were around age 11, and I was perfectly able to make a family meal. I think it is this parent led instructions that is missing, not home economics classes.

In addition, school home ec was bizarre, in the sense that the class lasted 1 hour 10 minutes - which had to include getting the room ready (cleaned down etc) for the next class. So with the initial instruction on what we were going to do, then prep time (nothing was 'pre-measured' or 'pre-prepared') the actual cooking time was probably 20-30 minutes max. That is plenty of time to make a whole host of things, but it also means you miss out a good section of slower cooking methods, as well as a lot of baking, and the use of ingredients that require prep time and/or cooking time.

That said, I would estimate that around 80% of my weekday evening meals take less than 30 minutes start to finish (although I concede I shop on weekends, on pop into the store on my way back from work, which adds around 10 minutes if I do - I don't do lingering!) The other 80% may take longer, but is 'hands-off'.

I adore cooking, but frankly, after all day at work, I don't want to stand in my kitchen for hours. I want to make food, and then enjoy my evening (go for a walk, watch a movie, do some gardening etc).

If you are around the home, but with other things to do (say, supervising homework, cleaning, laundry, paying bills, etc etc) there are hundreds of options that require very little hands on time at all, and are healthy, and not expensive. Last night I roasted a chicken, and did 2 trays of roasted veggies (red onion, bell peppers, zucchini) and some boiled potatoes. I was in the kitchen for maybe 5 minutes washing and chopping the veggies (and clearing up the board, knife and counter), another 2-3 minutes prepping and seasoning the chicken and then over the next 1 hour 10 mins, possibly spent another 5 minutes total in the kitchen basting, turning, putting things in and out of the oven, and serving up. For lunch, there are leftovers of last night's food. Tonight, the leftover chicken and veggies will be mixed with (store bought) jarred curry sauce, and served with the leftover potatoes in spices, and a small amount of rice, and the same meal will be lunch for tomorrow. 4 meal instances (2 suppers, 2 lunches) for under 30 minutes of my time.

I am, however, super envious of the pricing of the chicken and onion - my chicken (small at that!) was $10.11, and the 2 onions were $2.09!

Home ec class had its limits, but it was a public school offering free to all and taught more than the limited hands on cooking possible in one hour. So far as I know, there is now nothing public and free that is comparable to replace it except TV. Think how useful it would be to many, many people in a tight spot financially to be able to get as many meals with as little effort out of one chicken as Emma just described. That would be a useful home ec class indeed.

When a loaf of bread costs more than a dollar meal.....this is why the poor are now fat

When a loaf of bread costs more than a dollar meal.....this is why the poor are now fat

Not sure I follow your logic. Your overall point might be another matter--or not--but a loaf of bread will last for more than one meal with most people. A dollar meal lasts, by definition, for one meal for most people. The dollar hamburger meal, not accompanied by other items, is also not filling. Bread by itself wouldn't be either, but with a bit of butter (or margarine) or mayonnaise or beans or even a glass of milk made from dried milk, it would compare in temporary appetite suppression with a dollar meal, I would guess.

Assuming that the diner does not consume the entire loaf of bread at a sitting, then there ought to be some possibility to purchase a can of beans (which might last for 2-3 meals) and even a package of dried milk, which would be relatively far costlier but which would also last for awhile. Even without refrigeration, dried milk, before being reconstituted with water, is shelf-stable. Beans can be eaten from a can, unheated, and all that is needed for them is a can opener. Ask any hobo from Depression times. (Well, not literally.) I am trying to forestall a possible objection that there might be an issue as to whether a person had access to a refrigerator or, in the case of the beans, to a microwave. Access to the McDonald's dollar burger might involve a car, and if one has a car, one is likely to have access to a kitchen, but anyhow--.

The above would lead to less food dissatisfaction over the long run, I am thinking, since it incorporates fiber and maybe even some vitamins, especially if one adds canned spinach or carrots and the like. Then one might even add a dollar burger or a can of tuna from time to time. I have actually heard stories of farm people in the "olden days" who had meat only once a week.

The above does sound heartless, and I am not advocating it unless it is necessary, but it is possible, as I have lived that myself, and so did my parents, once, and so did a lot of people during the Depression (which fortunately is way before my time). If it doesn't have to be done, then don't do it. But if not done, and if poor choices are made, and if one ends up both malnourished and overweight, then one strategy--whether one agrees with the choice of austerity--is to back up a bit and reevaluate if one's food choices can be improved.

If the choice is between devouring an entire loaf of bread at one sitting or a hamburger, then, yes, I concede that the hamburger is less fattening. I don't see that as the only choice that people have. I realize that you might not have intended that implication.

Surely time is money if you have any kind of job which gives you the option of working longer hours - overtime at the store you work at, extra cleaning work, sell more stuff, make more stuff... The only way time isn't money is if your income is fixed.

As a poor grad student I had a job marking exam papers. I had a fixed quota for which I got a fixed payemnt and then I got paid per paper. In that situation I was financially better off if I spent time working and got a take away than spending the equivalant period of time shopping and cooking.

I would agree that the real problem is people not knowing how to cook. There was a TV programme here a few years ago about animal welfare in which there was a woman who bought a cheap battery chicken, roasted it, served up the breast meat and threw the rest of the carcass away. If we have roast chicken we also have sandwiches/pie/curry made with the leftover meat and sometimes boil up the bones for stock and make soup.

Not sure I follow your logic. Your overall point might be another matter--or not--but a loaf of bread will last for more than one meal with most people. A dollar meal lasts, by definition, for one meal for most people. The dollar hamburger meal, not accompanied by other items, is also not filling. Bread by itself wouldn't be either, but with a bit of butter (or margarine) or mayonnaise or beans or even a glass of milk made from dried milk, it would compare in temporary appetite suppression with a dollar meal, I would guess.

Assuming that the diner does not consume the entire loaf of bread at a sitting, then there ought to be some possibility to purchase a can of beans (which might last for 2-3 meals) and even a package of dried milk, which would be relatively far costlier but which would also last for awhile. Even without refrigeration, dried milk, before being reconstituted with water, is shelf-stable. Beans can be eaten from a can, unheated, and all that is needed for them is a can opener. Ask any hobo from Depression times. (Well, not literally.) I am trying to forestall a possible objection that there might be an issue as to whether a person had access to a refrigerator or, in the case of the beans, to a microwave. Access to the McDonald's dollar burger might involve a car, and if one has a car, one is likely to have access to a kitchen, but anyhow--.

The above would lead to less food dissatisfaction over the long run, I am thinking, since it incorporates fiber and maybe even some vitamins, especially if one adds canned spinach or carrots and the like. Then one might even add a dollar burger or a can of tuna from time to time. I have actually heard stories of farm people in the "olden days" who had meat only once a week.

The above does sound heartless, and I am not advocating it unless it is necessary, but it is possible, as I have lived that myself, and so did my parents, once, and so did a lot of people during the Depression (which fortunately is way before my time). If it doesn't have to be done, then don't do it. But if not done, and if poor choices are made, and if one ends up both malnourished and overweight, then one strategy--whether one agrees with the choice of austerity--is to back up a bit and reevaluate if one's food choices can be improved.

If the choice is between devouring an entire loaf of bread at one sitting or a hamburger, then, yes, I concede that the hamburger is less fattening. I don't see that as the only choice that people have. I realize that you might not have intended that implication.


You can't eat a loaf of bread for dinner...at least not long term. The perception is that you get more caloric bang for your buck at a fast food place.

This compounded by the fact that in low income areas, there are few if any supermarkets to actually get that 50 cent can of string beans. As a result many low income households are forced to buy their food at convienience and liquor stores because they have no reliable means of transport. The markups on regular food stuffs are huge...that 50 cent can of beans at the safeway is 2.30 at the mom n' pop liquor store..but the bag of Doritos and the pack of twinkies are 75 cents each.


And to those who hate upper/middle class advice to the lower class, keep in mind that it is the upper/middle classes who actually have degrees in medicine and other diet related fields. If it sounds like we know better, it's because we actually do. Poverty tends to beget ignorance, and mistrust of science, education, and those with advice based on objective reality.

You can't eat a loaf of bread for dinner...at least not long term.

I agree. That was one of the points I was trying to make, of course. Two slices of bread, with mayonnaise--and I've had meals of those--and you're good to go. The rest of the loaf of bread is available for the rest of the week, give or take. So the cost of buying a loaf of bread rather than the McDonald's burger is much less per serving.

I am still not advocating same, though I, and many erstwhile graduate students before and after me, remember having had to do the same. Better days are ahead for graduate students but not, unfortunately, for those with chronic lack of access to more healthful choices. Hence my careful wording.

But I do think of hobos of the "days of yore," opening a can of beans. The world got by without McDonalds for a long time--up until our time--and somehow, generally, people set about to cope as best they could.

IOW, one doesn't have to buy the highest-priced produce in the most upscale grocery-shopping venue in order not to be malnourished and concomitantly overweight. If that is presented as fact, then I would hope that the supposition is challenged, as I do think far more thrifty alternatives are available. Maybe if there was encouragement to price cans of vegetables at prices comparable to those of grocery stores, I wonder if that would be of some help? People have done without off-season "fresh" vegetables--imported from other countries--until recently.

And to those who hate upper/middle class advice to the lower class, keep in mind that it is the upper/middle classes who actually have degrees in medicine and other diet related fields. If it sounds like we know better, it's because we actually do. Poverty tends to beget ignorance, and mistrust of science, education, and those with advice based on objective reality.

You may know nutrition better, but you may not fully understand the circumstances in which some people live.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

You can't eat a loaf of bread for dinner...at least not long term.

I agree. That was one of the points I was trying to make, of course. Two slices of bread, with mayonnaise--and I've had meals of those--and you're good to go. The rest of the loaf of bread is available for the rest of the week, give or take. So the cost of buying a loaf of bread rather than the McDonald's burger is much less per serving.

I am still not advocating same, though I, and many erstwhile graduate students before and after me, remember having had to do the same. Better days are ahead for graduate students but not, unfortunately, for those with chronic lack of access to more healthful choices. Hence my careful wording.

But I do think of hobos of the "days of yore," opening a can of beans. The world got by without McDonalds for a long time--up until our time--and somehow, generally, people set about to cope as best they could.

IOW, one doesn't have to buy the highest-priced produce in the most upscale grocery-shopping venue in order not to be malnourished and concomitantly overweight. If that is presented as fact, then I would hope that the supposition is challenged, as I do think far more thrifty alternatives are available. Maybe if there was encouragement to price cans of vegetables at prices comparable to those of grocery stores, I wonder if that would be of some help? People have done without off-season "fresh" vegetables--imported from other countries--until recently.

You could probably do better with McDs than 2 slices of white bread and mayo.

I think one's own cooking is basically free labor, yes. I don't buy into this "time is money" hooey when it comes to the poor and lower middle class. What are they going to be doing with their time that is so valuable? What is the opportunity cost here? Can you quantify it?

And the other excuses are simply those, excuses. The myth isn't that it is easier to cook. Of course time is money, and even more so for poor, because it is 30 minutes that they are not earning a wage.

I've run multiple food drives as a Boy Scout leader and what I hear from food bank directors is people need things that are quick to prepare because some folks coming to the food bank work 12 to 16 hours per day and lot of them don't have money for the utility bill, so they need foods that require little input of energy, human or gas/electric.

If you're going to discuss food for true poor, when you start talking about the cost to cook, you need to open your horizons a bit more and consider all costs, like running the fridge, or even having a working fridge, the opportunity cost of 30 minutes less wage earning time, 30 minutes less sleep per day, 30 minutes less time helping your kids with their homework, etc.

And your 30 minute claim is only for one meal per day.

Of course time is money, and even more so for poor, because it is 30 minutes that they are not earning a wage.

I've run multiple food drives as a Boy Scout leader and what I hear from food bank directors is people need things that are quick to prepare because some folks coming to the food bank work 12 to 16 hours per day and lot of them don't have money for the utility bill, so they need foods that require little input of energy, human or gas/electric.

If you're going to discuss food for true poor, when you start talking about the cost to cook, you need to open your horizons a bit more and consider all costs, like running the fridge, or even having a working fridge, the opportunity cost of 30 minutes less wage earning time, 30 minutes less sleep per day, 30 minutes less time helping your kids with their homework, etc.

And your 30 minute claim is only for one meal per day.

Look, I don't know the ultimate truth on this. When you talk about millions of people you are going to be talking about different circumstances for all. But I can't get past the perception that dining at at a fast-food hamburger place habitually--day by day--is a relatively poor use of funds. People have the right to make that choice. But, keeping the point of discussion to "use of funds," and perhaps throwing in "nutritional value," and even "expected health outcome," it still seems to me that the illustrations pictured in the OP are essentially valid, that a McDonald's meal costs more than a meal of beans and rice.

I don't care what people choose. It is none of my business. BTW, ^ to you for helping with a food bank. It seems to me, however, that your discussion of the costs of having a refrigerator, etc., though valid, ignores the costs of driving to a fast-food place. My point of how hobos once coped--and they weren't feeding families, so not comparable beyond a point--by opening a can of beans was that people don't need to be driven to Whole Foods twice a week, then driven back.

It's all in how one words an issue, of course. The issue here is fresh foods, is it not? Expensive fresh foods was the premise? Not canned foods. I am thinking that the implication is imported, out-of-season fresh foods plus locally grown artisan foods. Those drive up the costs, though still, I think daily visits to McDonald's generally would trump those.

As to the argument about canned foods, it seems that one thing helpful might be to ensure better availability of canned goods at reasonable prices to poorer neighborhoods, not to ask these people to settle for dining on hamburgers daily. Again, I am aware that words can be misinterpreted, distorted, or otherwise mangled, and I am trying to avoid that. Making canned goods more affordable and reachable won't solve the entire problem. People still need fresh foods. But the alternative presented in this thread, of dining at McDonald's, isn't presenting that either, is it? What it is presenting is trying to think beyond that choice, drive to McDonald's and have bread and meat, or go to a shelf in one's home/living space and open a can of beans, supplement with other canned food choices. I am mindful of the chilling circumstances in which families have to live from time to time, multiple jobs and sometimes homelessness. I don't think their issues, terrible and pitiable, are included in this thread, however. All of us on this thread, I trust, would just want whatever makes their lives better. On this issue, I am thinking of the comparatively comfortable, who do have a choice as to whether to go to McDonald's habitually, as a daily--repeat, "daily" choice--that seems to me--with senses honed by generations before, who could not afford "dining out"--extravagant. I have no right to make that decision for others, and I wouldn't if I could. I also think that dining at hamburger fast-food places can't be optimal for their children either, though that is just my opinion. I am addressing only what seems to me to be the validity of the reasoning, not people's rights to reason as they wish and certainly not the rights of others to make their own choices, whether "reasonable" or not.

Times change, and the dollar menu can be good from time to time. But as habitual choice, for the reason that it is cheaper and takes less time? A person's right to choose, and that is their business, not mine.

As to relative choices of hamburger or beans and rice, neither is good entirely, and both choices sound dismal if that is all there is, and I certainly hope that one could dine at home sometimes and go to McDonald's other times, and also buy oranges and fresh lettuce and fresh milk, etc., as well, but I am trying to narrow the issue for the purpose of discussion. Only. IF--in a laboratory setting--the choice is between the cost (and outcome as to health) of a steady diet over the years of bread and meat only or between a steady diet of canned foods only. That's all the issue being discussed. (And I would hope that people do have access to food banks, so thanks again for your own tangible contribution in that respect.)

ETA: Driving costs to get to McDonald's have to be figured in, IF cost is the exclusive factor. Time to drive has to be figured in if convenience is the main factor. There is a "fun" factor, of course, and that is a valid component as well, though if one dines at McDonald's every day (the assumption behind my reasoning), that would diminish over time, presumably.

Put simply: Dining out has traditionally been regarded as a relatively expensive food choice. People prepared their own foods. Canned foods are a timesaver. Until recent generations, people worked in the fields all day. Until recent generations, people did not have refrigeration to keep foods from spoilage. I.e., judging by the experiences of preceding generations, it should be possible to feed people without resorting entirely--as a sole and daily resource--to a relative newcomer, McDonald's.

Not usually.

Sometimes I'll use a recipe as a guide, particularly if I'm baking, but I don't think I've ever made a recipe exactly as it was written.

I read lots of recipes for inspiration with regards to ingredient combinations... but generally I just wing it.

Recipes, are for people with no taste :D

the best way is always to your taste, or those around you.
Baking is the one thing that needs more precision, but after experience even it doesn't need recipes.

Driving to Macdonalds is not a factor if you walk there/also have to drive to your other food source. If one can stop there on one's walk home from work then clearly it's a winner in the time/cost of procurement stakes.

Has anyone read The Road To Wigan Pier? Orwell suggests that whilst the diet of the poor people he was meeting was not healthy (and that a healthier diet might also have been cheaper) food was one of the few enjoyable things in their lives - most of his subjects were people living on or below the breadline in early 1930s Britain.

ETA: Driving costs to get to McDonald's have to be figured in.

Time to get out of th suburbs and back into the city.
How about walking to McDonalds's?

Of course time is money, and even more so for poor, because it is 30 minutes that they are not earning a wage.

I've run multiple food drives as a Boy Scout leader and what I hear from food bank directors is people need things that are quick to prepare because some folks coming to the food bank work 12 to 16 hours per day and lot of them don't have money for the utility bill, so they need foods that require little input of energy, human or gas/electric.

If you're going to discuss food for true poor, when you start talking about the cost to cook, you need to open your horizons a bit more and consider all costs, like running the fridge, or even having a working fridge, the opportunity cost of 30 minutes less wage earning time, 30 minutes less sleep per day, 30 minutes less time helping your kids with their homework, etc.

And your 30 minute claim is only for one meal per day.

His claim may have been 30 minutes per meal per day, but mine was for 4 meals - or around 7.5 minutes per meal. Yes, there was additional time in the oven, but that is time that can be spent cleaning, doing homework with children, grabbing a shower, handwashing items etc. If you are conscious of the utlilities, then you make the most of the oven while it is on - baking some potatoes along side the chicken, making a lasagne etc. My mother had it instilled in her that you make the most of the time the oven is on - and even now, I tend to do similar, and will cook several things at once if there is space (the chicken and 2 trays of veg took up a fair bit, but I could have squeezed in some baking potatoes, and cooked a lasagne by cooking the veg in 2 batches (oven on for the same time, just starting the veg earlier).)

Coping without a fridge in hot summer weather is a challenge, and it must be very hard to keep cooked food safely in such circumstances.

Ball now makes 'freezer jars' super locking seal plastic containers that keep food REALLY fresh and reheatable.

I got them due to a $1 off coupon and didn't expect much but am really liking them. They don't allow any moisture to seep in, and even after a week now I popped the top of one and they have the great fresh smell of the soup I stored in them, like I just put it in there.

They are made to defrost in the microwave but not reheat in the microwave, if you are looking for a healthy way to cook storing foods in the freezer, I can highly recommend the ball freezer 'jars'

http://www.freshpreserving.com/products/freezer.aspx

They have 8oz and 16oz containers, I got the 8oz, a perfect sized quick meal!

You gotta give props to McD for adding calories to menus nationwide through. Hopefully everyone else follows - I'm sure it should at least get people thinking

You gotta give props to McD for adding calories to menus nationwide through. Hopefully everyone else follows - I'm sure it should at least get people thinking

I don't give them "props" for that. It's a trivial and meaningless change that is going to soon be required by law anyway. It's an excuse for them to make it look like they care so they can stave off further regulation.

Not really trivial, most fast food restaurants are fighting tooth and nail to avoid it. Showing a 2000 calorie meal usually raises a few eyebrows. And it's super helpful to me because I can budget; e.g., if I get this Big Mac I'm going to need to trade it for my afternoon starbucks snack.

I don't give them "props" for that. It's a trivial and meaningless change that is going to soon be required by law anyway. It's an excuse for them to make it look like they care so they can stave off further regulation.

It's also already required by law in a few localities, and it was probably cheaper for many of these places to just get ahead of the federal law that was coming anyway than to comply in a limited range of places.

Yes, it's of somewhat limited utility, but it's neither meaningless not useless. It's certainly changed my ordering habits some places, where the items I'd have assumed were comparable had quite disparate calorie counts.

When I go out to eat, it's usually involves taking out mom to dinner.

We usually end up ordering one plate and splitting it up. Most of the time the food is too much to eat for her at her age so we just decided to order one plate that we both like and ask the server to bring us two plates so we can share.

Yes, it's of somewhat limited utility, but it's neither meaningless not useless. It's certainly changed my ordering habits some places, where the items I'd have assumed were comparable had quite disparate calorie counts.

That's great that it has changed your habits, but studies have shown that it has a minimal, if any, impact on the average person. There was an article in the Economist last year I believe, which cited some research showing that people don't actually order less if they are given this information.

That's great that it has changed your habits, but studies have shown that it has a minimal, if any, impact on the average person. There was an article in the Economist last year I believe, which cited some research showing that people don't actually order less if they are given this information.

Like many other labeling laws, it has minimal cost, and makes the information substantially more accessible to those who want it compared to the old "make available on request" rules. If it only helps a few people, that's a perfectly good cost-benefit tradeoff even if it changes no behavior.

Also, it may change behavior more effectively over time as it becomes less of a novelty (and is available more universally, and as other forms of health education become more available and up to date.)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

That's great that it has changed your habits, but studies have shown that it has a minimal, if any, impact on the average person. There was an article in the Economist last year I believe, which cited some research showing that people don't actually order less if they are given this information.

Like many other labeling laws, it has minimal cost, and makes the information substantially more accessible to those who want it compared to the old "make available on request" rules. If it only helps a few people, that's a perfectly good cost-benefit tradeoff even if it changes no behavior.

Also, it may change behavior more effectively over time as it becomes less of a novelty (and is available more universally, and as other forms of health education become more available and up to date.)

I think your last point is spot on and really the crux of the issue. There aren't any simple fixes. This is one step, a good one, but for much effect it will need to be part of a broader program of education.

As Gadgetfreak, I take it as given that homecooking is cheaper than eating out in general. Only if you go to the extremes will that turn. Some examples. Someone makes $50 an hour. 160h/week. 12 months. Yearly wage $96k before taxes. Congratulations! Let's figure that will be 20% less after taxes unless you are Romney. So let's say net hourly wage $40. I use net because that's what you pay your bills with be it food, gas or electricity.

Only at this point, it may be cheaper or equal to get 4 Big Mac Meals ($6.50 each with tax) and 4 Sundaes ($1.25 with tax). That's $31. So that's still more expensive on the food alone because for $20 I can put a nice meal with desert for four people on the table. Prep time and clean up about 1hr. If you are smart, your kids will help. Less time needed. Grocery shopping can be done when running other errands. Also it can be done for the week. Whereas food intake is a daily thing. But eating out, the family first has to come together at the home. So count time to drive there and back, say 20 minutes total. Thus 1/3 of $40 hour equaling $13. Plus gas for say ten miles. And extra mileage usage on car because that is one specific trip while grocery on the way from work isn't. So at least another $3 for gas and mileage, rather more but let's be generous.

So we get food for 20 and prep time and cost for 40 when doing it at home. Makes $60.
We get food for 31 and time and gas comsumption for 16 when eating at McD. Thus $47.

So under these circumstances, that are simplified but not far from reality, it would be cheaper to eat fast food for around $7-8 per full meal. However, if your hourly wage is less than $25 net, even the fast food option is starting to become more expensive than home cooking. This means that especially poor people making minimum wage or less are living above their means and unhealthily when they eat out.

The problem here is that the "rich" family will want something better than McD, which in all likelihood would be again an uneconomical and unhealthy choice, or at least uneconomical.

The other problem is education and understanding. Many here have said it: It takes some planning, some knowledge (of how to run a household and cook and nutrition) and some work and discipline. All of which are things that the poor and uneducated lack very often. I have a friend who has run into some hard luck and is now completely bankrupt with no income for years. He eats food for about $4 per day and healthily so. Beans, rice, potatoes, lentils, eggs, milk, fruit (bananas, grapes), cale, salad, carrots, tomatoes and so on. He is a good cook and prepares excellent meals with these things. But a) one has to know how to do those things, and b) one has to have the will to do it.

I can understand very well from my own experience how laziness is the biggest decision maker and laziness in food convenience is just so easy, especially when one is single. But those people that eat at McD as they would say "out of necessity" are really those that shouldn't be doing that. They should eat at home and learn how to cook out of necessity. Just to make them understand that is a huge task and will take some time.

Till

His claim may have been 30 minutes per meal per day, but mine was for 4 meals - or around 7.5 minutes per meal. Yes, there was additional time in the oven, but that is time that can be spent cleaning, doing homework with children, grabbing a shower, handwashing items etc. If you are conscious of the utlilities, then you make the most of the oven while it is on - baking some potatoes along side the chicken, making a lasagne etc. My mother had it instilled in her that you make the most of the time the oven is on - and even now, I tend to do similar, and will cook several things at once if there is space (the chicken and 2 trays of veg took up a fair bit, but I could have squeezed in some baking potatoes, and cooked a lasagne by cooking the veg in 2 batches (oven on for the same time, just starting the veg earlier).)

Coping without a fridge in hot summer weather is a challenge, and it must be very hard to keep cooked food safely in such circumstances.

Interesting discussion, and I'd like to contribute a note to those who like a little history:
There is a book that was written in 1942 by MFK Fisher called "How to Cook a Wolf". It was written to help people learn to feed themselves and their families while coping with the very dire financial straits brought about by WWII and food rationing. There was no cheap fast food to rely on then, and Fisher was very practical and creative about maximizing the use of ingredients, appliances, household fuel, and time. There are a lot of helpful principles that can be applied to meal preparation today.
Just shows that these are problems that have always been here for some, and only recently have fast food diets been an option.

Interesting discussion, and I'd like to contribute a note to those who like a little history:
There is a book that was written in 1942 by MFK Fisher called "How to Cook a Wolf". It was written to help people learn to feed themselves and their families while coping with the very dire financial straits brought about by WWII and food rationing. There was no cheap fast food to rely on then, and Fisher was very practical and creative about maximizing the use of ingredients, appliances, household fuel, and time. There are a lot of helpful principles that can be applied to meal preparation today.
Just shows that these are problems that have always been here for some, and only recently have fast food diets been an option.

Interesting point. I completely agree. Much more recently, and inspired by the Fisher book, Tamar Adler, formerly a chef at Chez Panisse, wrote a book on simple cooking with fresh, healthy ingredients at home called "An Everlasting Feast". I highly recommend it.

Will check both of these out. Thanks to the foodie and the freak. :)

Till