10 ms·

The headline misrepresents the article completely. Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. However, that does not mean that expen

by Tharre 10y ago

The headline misrepresents the article completely. Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. However, that does not mean that expensive equals healthy. It's basically the same old "everything that's good is (at least somewhat) expensive, but not everything that's expensive is good" applied to food. BTW: why the heck are both source and journal reference links to some top level domains?

Fnoord 10y ago
> Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. However, that does not mean that expensive equals healthy. > It's basically the same old "everything that's good is (at least somewhat) expensive, but not everything that's expensive is good" applied to food. Actually, that is false and contradicting. It is perfectly possible to eat healthy and cheap. Sure, if you limit your price you end up with less choice, but that does not mean the cheap choices are bad, or that you end up with expensive food if you want quality. An entire industry wants to make you think otherwise, but they're deceiving the customers. Take for example, from the article, the following: "The key was that for some participants the Chicken Balsamic Wrap was listed as more expensive, and for others the Roasted Chicken Wrap cost more.". The names of products should not be misleading, yet the industry gets away with it, 'as long as its in the product'. Sounds good? Well, if there are trace amounts in the product, it counts. This is just one example. Another one is right in the article: "“Rich in Vitamin A for eye health.”" this is a fraudulent statement, a propaganda lie which stems from WWII. The Brits used it as propaganda to convince the general public, including the Germans, that this was what allowed them to see German airplanes in advance (it was actually radar which did). It has long since been debunked. Our laws are failing us here. They are supposed to protect us, but companies work around them. Some very healthy foods which aren't that expensive (in my grocery store, in my country, YMMV (!!)): free range chicken eggs. Compared to a cereal, much more healthy, and filling. Yet a fraction of the price. Another example: an unripe banana is high on magnesium, yet doesn't contain a lot of sugar. You may find it between other bananas which are more ripe. Frozen raspberries and blueberries, cost about half of fresh ones, yet they'll stay well longer. You won't find the green friends on those berries while they're in the freezer. Another silly one is all those fruit juices. As if you need vitamin C if you simply eat green vegetables such as brocolli. There are countless of examples available. It does require some comparisons and it does depend on what you believe is healthy. People don't wanna make those comparisons at 5 PM after a long day of work, I get that. That is why I want governments to interfere. The industry is too selfish to manage this on their own (they're for profit, and enjoy a lack of regulations on it), and is confusing the general public with smoke screens on what is healthy and what isn't, or like this article explains with silly prices. It is actually quite a fallacy, and the opposite is suggesting: "because this is expensive, and we claim it is healthy, it is therefore more likely to be healthy than if it were cheap. Else we would sell it cheaper." it stems from the ridiculous assumption that expensive food means healthier food. As for your statement: "Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat." we are creature of habit. If your food habits are healthy as they are, and you have done your best to find cheap yet quality food in your grocery store then you'll be fine with doing groceries at 5 PM whilst being tired from work. You just mindlessly buy the things you always buy, you don't get distracted by offers, you don't have to do any research or comparisons. You already made up your mind. It is not equal to 'not caring' since you did once care, but it is 'careless' in a sense.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  "Rich in Vitamin A for eye health." Is not a fraudulent statement nor has it been "debunked." Vitamin A is absolutely essential for eye health. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-carrots-improve-your-vision/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-c... > Vitamin A helps the eye convert light into a signal that can be transmitted to the brain, allowing people to see under conditions of low light. In addition, the cornea (the clear front of the eye) can literally disappear if the body does not get enough vitamin A. Every year an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency. In settings where undernourished people suffer from extreme vitamin A deficiencies, such as Nepal or India, supplements of the vitamin or beta-carotene have been shown to improve night vision
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    The claim was, back then, that people had to eat more carrots to improve eye sight. Healthy people already have good vitamin A levels. So additional vitamin A does not improve their eye sight to superstitious levels (as the propaganda claimed). With a normal diet you will get more than enough vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency stems from malnourishment. According to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vitamin_A_deficiency_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vitamin_... deficiency only somewhat occurs in Africa. On top of that, it is important to note that overdosing on supplements is possible. See also: http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp So the notion that someone in the West (who I assume is the reader of this website, and not a malnourished person from Africa) needs to focus on vitamin A, or has to care about such statements, is false. They get their vitamin A, they are not deficient, and the statement that one needs to eat something rich in vitamin A for eye health is very likely to be false; therefore unnecessary, and also fraudulent. Such statements are akin to a statement such as "rich in NaCl for survival". Sure, one needs NaCl, but we already get far too much of it anyway; the average West civilian does not have to focus on more NaCl. If anything, less. I admit a major difference is that it is harder to overdose on vitamin A, than NaCl, but the former is still inaccurate and makes people feel well that they treat themselves with healthy foods which are in fact nothing but needless quackery.
the_gastropod 10y ago
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. You can eat a healthy diet for very cheap. Rice, beans, most in-season fresh vegetables, out-of-season frozen vegetables, flour, peanuts, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, russet potatoes, etc are all quite cheap. Throw in some spices and your protein of choice, and you can eat more cheaply on these foods than on a "not caring about what you eat" diet of lean cuisines, fruit loops, and poptarts.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
Yup, and it's no surprise that we've resorted to interpreting price as a signal of healthiness/quality. What's the alternative? To spend your entire life researching which nutrients justify a higher price and which are just marketing gimmicks? Then spend even more time figuring out if "enriched" foods are sufficient or if there's no substitute for the real deal? Then research suppliers for individual brands and see if their production process is up to snuff? Then you get into the whole organic debate, the GMO debate, and other things like fresh vs. frozen. Did you know that most vegetables are just as healthy frozen but broccoli is better fresh? And who knows the best way to prepare each vegetable to maximize the bioavailability of each nutrient? I know I can't keep track of it all... and that's without taking into account the ever-changing science of nutrition. The real failure here is our food labeling system. It's not our fault that we have to rely on an unreliable signal (price) as an indicator of a product's nutritional value.
- jdietrich 10y ago
  Eat food. Mainly plants. Not too much. It is ludicrously simple. You don't have to keep track of anything, you don't have to research anything. We would prefer to believe that nutrition is immensely complex, for the same reason that those "One Weird Tip For a Flat Belly" banner ads work. We know the blindingly obvious truth, but we don't like it very much. Pretending that nutrition is difficult is a cognitive defence against eating the things that all of us know to be healthy - fresh vegetables and whole grains. It gives us an excuse for eating foods that are obviously enormously salty, fatty and sugary. In essence, we are addicts in denial. We are hooked on foods that we know to be bad for us. We are hooked on excessively large portions. We are hooked on fat, hooked on salt, hooked on sugar. We will invent any fiction we need to avoid facing the reality of that addiction.
  - gthtjtkt 10y ago
    Nobody said picking out healthy foods is hard. Anyone can point to some fruits, vegetables, rice, and boneless/skinless chicken breasts and say "those are healthy". But this isn't about that. This is about comparing the relative nutritional value of foods that aren't as easy to categorize. Like trainers always say, the best workout plan is the one you'll do, and the same is true of diet. Most people won't be happy very long eating "Mainly plants. Not too much." They will inevitably deviate from that diet. That doesn't mean they'll have to eat unhealthy foods, but they will need a way to judge the relative nutritional value of foods that aren't "mainly plants" in order to make good choices. At that point, nutrition does become fairly complex.
jdietrich 10y ago
Most Americans simply need to eat less. America is not facing an epidemic of rickets, scurvy or beriberi, but it is facing an epidemic of obesity-related diseases. The average American is eating ~50% more calories than they need. That caloric surplus is the dominant issue. Skipping dessert is free. Not snacking between meals is free. Serving smaller portions is free. Apples are cheaper than candy bars, carrots are cheaper than meat. Whole grains and pulses are the basic sustenance for most of the poorest people on earth. The problem is simply too much food, available too cheaply. There is an abundance of tempting, calorie-dense foods. Given the choice between spending $0.25 on a banana and $1 on a candy bar, most people choose the candy bar. This is why we're seeing increasing mortality in middle-income countries - when you overcome the diseases of poverty, you quickly start developing the diseases of wealth.
- linkregister 10y ago
  I doubt that any quantity of carrots would provide the satiety needed to overcome impulses to overeat with ultra-high-energy food. A balanced diet containing a mix of vegetables, meat or meat substitute, and carbohydrates will provide this satiety and the necessary nutrients. And it will taste good. A blame-centric approach only works on an individual basis. Using a blame-centric model is unlikely to be productive when addressing groups.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    It's not about being blame centric it's about accurately targeting a goal. Healthy or more importantly just healthier is near treated as some form of weird mysticism that needs to involve home made fruit smoothies and yoga in the mind of the public or at least it can seem that way when it's discussed. I think he makes an excellent point that most of society isn't suffering illness from a lack of micronutrients but instead excess calories and I think it's worth mentioning because so much worry and over optimisation in people trying to eat healthier involves trying to maximise micronutrients. Yes, swapping from a calorie dense diet to a not so dense one is mentally difficult. That's a point for why we need less focus on a vague "heathy" label that makes the task out to not just be a difficult exercise of willpower but complex as well.
white-flame 10y ago
> Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat Can you point to some examples of unhealthy food that's actually cheap, in terms of price per weight unit? I simply cannot think of anything from that category that rivals basic rice, veggies, sale-price meat, etc. If you're going solely on cheap, you will generally end up in these "healthier" categories. If you're going on "don't care", you'll not stick in the cheap and be more pricey, plus more likely in convenience items of questionable to poor healthiness. It's funny how often I see some tempting convenience food or treat or whatever, and notice that its price per weight is more expensive than a quality steak.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  You need a better metric than price per weight unit. A non-trivial cost of buying fresh food is spoilage. In contrast, heavily processed foods keep longer or come already portioned.
  - white-flame 10y ago
    Food weight is roughly indicative of how much you're going to eat, and it's what most grocery stores list nowadays on the shelf price labels, both for basic foods and processed/packaged. As far as spoilage goes, that's just purchasing what you'll assume to eat. And having a few vegetables go off at the end after you've already eaten many of them doesn't even double the price per unit, while convenience food ranges tend to be many times the price.
gozur88 10y ago
>Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. I don't believe this is true. I've never been able to eat out as cheaply as I can cook healthy food.
darpa_escapee 10y ago
> Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. False. I started preparing pretty much all of my meals for health reasons and spend much less than I ever did before. When I didn't care and I bought what I craved or sounded good when I was hungry, I was spending close to 50%-60% more at the store. Prepared or processed foods are generally more expensive than others. Packaging, marketing etc are used to influence your purchasing decisions. Example: frozen sauteed broccoli: 2 servings -> $3.49 14oz frozen broccoli: ~5 servings -> $1.09 One serving of the former is more expensive than 5 servings of the latter. They're both healthy choices, but former is a product from a large company that put more into their packaging and preparation. I can throw the latter in pan with some garlic, butter or oil and accomplish the same or prepare them however I like. Still, a lot of processed foods at Whole Foods et al are still not 'good' for you. Organic carbs and Himalayan salt are still carbs and sodium.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  I think you forgot to factor in your time cost of planning and preparation. What is your time worth to you? Mine is certainly greater than the extra cost of ordering in.

by Tharre 10y ago

Fnoord 10y ago

> Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. However, that does not mean that expensive equals healthy. > It's basically the same old "everything that's good is (at least somewhat) expensive, but not everything that's expensive is good" applied to food. Actually, that is false and contradicting. It is perfectly possible to eat healthy and cheap. Sure, if you limit your price you end up with less choice, but that does not mean the cheap choices are bad, or that you end up with expensive food if you want quality. An entire industry wants to make you think otherwise, but they're deceiving the customers. Take for example, from the article, the following: "The key was that for some participants the Chicken Balsamic Wrap was listed as more expensive, and for others the Roasted Chicken Wrap cost more.". The names of products should not be misleading, yet the industry gets away with it, 'as long as its in the product'. Sounds good? Well, if there are trace amounts in the product, it counts. This is just one example. Another one is right in the article: "“Rich in Vitamin A for eye health.”" this is a fraudulent statement, a propaganda lie which stems from WWII. The Brits used it as propaganda to convince the general public, including the Germans, that this was what allowed them to see German airplanes in advance (it was actually radar which did). It has long since been debunked. Our laws are failing us here. They are supposed to protect us, but companies work around them. Some very healthy foods which aren't that expensive (in my grocery store, in my country, YMMV (!!)): free range chicken eggs. Compared to a cereal, much more healthy, and filling. Yet a fraction of the price. Another example: an unripe banana is high on magnesium, yet doesn't contain a lot of sugar. You may find it between other bananas which are more ripe. Frozen raspberries and blueberries, cost about half of fresh ones, yet they'll stay well longer. You won't find the green friends on those berries while they're in the freezer. Another silly one is all those fruit juices. As if you need vitamin C if you simply eat green vegetables such as brocolli. There are countless of examples available. It does require some comparisons and it does depend on what you believe is healthy. People don't wanna make those comparisons at 5 PM after a long day of work, I get that. That is why I want governments to interfere. The industry is too selfish to manage this on their own (they're for profit, and enjoy a lack of regulations on it), and is confusing the general public with smoke screens on what is healthy and what isn't, or like this article explains with silly prices. It is actually quite a fallacy, and the opposite is suggesting: "because this is expensive, and we claim it is healthy, it is therefore more likely to be healthy than if it were cheap. Else we would sell it cheaper." it stems from the ridiculous assumption that expensive food means healthier food. As for your statement: "Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat." we are creature of habit. If your food habits are healthy as they are, and you have done your best to find cheap yet quality food in your grocery store then you'll be fine with doing groceries at 5 PM whilst being tired from work. You just mindlessly buy the things you always buy, you don't get distracted by offers, you don't have to do any research or comparisons. You already made up your mind. It is not equal to 'not caring' since you did once care, but it is 'careless' in a sense.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
"Rich in Vitamin A for eye health." Is not a fraudulent statement nor has it been "debunked." Vitamin A is absolutely essential for eye health. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-carrots-improve-your-vision/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-c... > Vitamin A helps the eye convert light into a signal that can be transmitted to the brain, allowing people to see under conditions of low light. In addition, the cornea (the clear front of the eye) can literally disappear if the body does not get enough vitamin A. Every year an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency. In settings where undernourished people suffer from extreme vitamin A deficiencies, such as Nepal or India, supplements of the vitamin or beta-carotene have been shown to improve night vision
- Fnoord 10y ago
  The claim was, back then, that people had to eat more carrots to improve eye sight. Healthy people already have good vitamin A levels. So additional vitamin A does not improve their eye sight to superstitious levels (as the propaganda claimed). With a normal diet you will get more than enough vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency stems from malnourishment. According to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vitamin_A_deficiency_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vitamin_... deficiency only somewhat occurs in Africa. On top of that, it is important to note that overdosing on supplements is possible. See also: http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp So the notion that someone in the West (who I assume is the reader of this website, and not a malnourished person from Africa) needs to focus on vitamin A, or has to care about such statements, is false. They get their vitamin A, they are not deficient, and the statement that one needs to eat something rich in vitamin A for eye health is very likely to be false; therefore unnecessary, and also fraudulent. Such statements are akin to a statement such as "rich in NaCl for survival". Sure, one needs NaCl, but we already get far too much of it anyway; the average West civilian does not have to focus on more NaCl. If anything, less. I admit a major difference is that it is harder to overdose on vitamin A, than NaCl, but the former is still inaccurate and makes people feel well that they treat themselves with healthy foods which are in fact nothing but needless quackery.

the_gastropod 10y ago

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. You can eat a healthy diet for very cheap. Rice, beans, most in-season fresh vegetables, out-of-season frozen vegetables, flour, peanuts, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, russet potatoes, etc are all quite cheap. Throw in some spices and your protein of choice, and you can eat more cheaply on these foods than on a "not caring about what you eat" diet of lean cuisines, fruit loops, and poptarts.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

Yup, and it's no surprise that we've resorted to interpreting price as a signal of healthiness/quality. What's the alternative? To spend your entire life researching which nutrients justify a higher price and which are just marketing gimmicks? Then spend even more time figuring out if "enriched" foods are sufficient or if there's no substitute for the real deal? Then research suppliers for individual brands and see if their production process is up to snuff? Then you get into the whole organic debate, the GMO debate, and other things like fresh vs. frozen. Did you know that most vegetables are just as healthy frozen but broccoli is better fresh? And who knows the best way to prepare each vegetable to maximize the bioavailability of each nutrient? I know I can't keep track of it all... and that's without taking into account the ever-changing science of nutrition. The real failure here is our food labeling system. It's not our fault that we have to rely on an unreliable signal (price) as an indicator of a product's nutritional value.

jdietrich 10y ago
Eat food. Mainly plants. Not too much. It is ludicrously simple. You don't have to keep track of anything, you don't have to research anything. We would prefer to believe that nutrition is immensely complex, for the same reason that those "One Weird Tip For a Flat Belly" banner ads work. We know the blindingly obvious truth, but we don't like it very much. Pretending that nutrition is difficult is a cognitive defence against eating the things that all of us know to be healthy - fresh vegetables and whole grains. It gives us an excuse for eating foods that are obviously enormously salty, fatty and sugary. In essence, we are addicts in denial. We are hooked on foods that we know to be bad for us. We are hooked on excessively large portions. We are hooked on fat, hooked on salt, hooked on sugar. We will invent any fiction we need to avoid facing the reality of that addiction.
- gthtjtkt 10y ago
  Nobody said picking out healthy foods is hard. Anyone can point to some fruits, vegetables, rice, and boneless/skinless chicken breasts and say "those are healthy". But this isn't about that. This is about comparing the relative nutritional value of foods that aren't as easy to categorize. Like trainers always say, the best workout plan is the one you'll do, and the same is true of diet. Most people won't be happy very long eating "Mainly plants. Not too much." They will inevitably deviate from that diet. That doesn't mean they'll have to eat unhealthy foods, but they will need a way to judge the relative nutritional value of foods that aren't "mainly plants" in order to make good choices. At that point, nutrition does become fairly complex.

jdietrich 10y ago

Most Americans simply need to eat less. America is not facing an epidemic of rickets, scurvy or beriberi, but it is facing an epidemic of obesity-related diseases. The average American is eating ~50% more calories than they need. That caloric surplus is the dominant issue. Skipping dessert is free. Not snacking between meals is free. Serving smaller portions is free. Apples are cheaper than candy bars, carrots are cheaper than meat. Whole grains and pulses are the basic sustenance for most of the poorest people on earth. The problem is simply too much food, available too cheaply. There is an abundance of tempting, calorie-dense foods. Given the choice between spending $0.25 on a banana and $1 on a candy bar, most people choose the candy bar. This is why we're seeing increasing mortality in middle-income countries - when you overcome the diseases of poverty, you quickly start developing the diseases of wealth.

linkregister 10y ago
I doubt that any quantity of carrots would provide the satiety needed to overcome impulses to overeat with ultra-high-energy food. A balanced diet containing a mix of vegetables, meat or meat substitute, and carbohydrates will provide this satiety and the necessary nutrients. And it will taste good. A blame-centric approach only works on an individual basis. Using a blame-centric model is unlikely to be productive when addressing groups.
- Trundle 10y ago
  It's not about being blame centric it's about accurately targeting a goal. Healthy or more importantly just healthier is near treated as some form of weird mysticism that needs to involve home made fruit smoothies and yoga in the mind of the public or at least it can seem that way when it's discussed. I think he makes an excellent point that most of society isn't suffering illness from a lack of micronutrients but instead excess calories and I think it's worth mentioning because so much worry and over optimisation in people trying to eat healthier involves trying to maximise micronutrients. Yes, swapping from a calorie dense diet to a not so dense one is mentally difficult. That's a point for why we need less focus on a vague "heathy" label that makes the task out to not just be a difficult exercise of willpower but complex as well.

white-flame 10y ago

> Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat Can you point to some examples of unhealthy food that's actually cheap, in terms of price per weight unit? I simply cannot think of anything from that category that rivals basic rice, veggies, sale-price meat, etc. If you're going solely on cheap, you will generally end up in these "healthier" categories. If you're going on "don't care", you'll not stick in the cheap and be more pricey, plus more likely in convenience items of questionable to poor healthiness. It's funny how often I see some tempting convenience food or treat or whatever, and notice that its price per weight is more expensive than a quality steak.

humanrebar 10y ago
You need a better metric than price per weight unit. A non-trivial cost of buying fresh food is spoilage. In contrast, heavily processed foods keep longer or come already portioned.
- white-flame 10y ago
  Food weight is roughly indicative of how much you're going to eat, and it's what most grocery stores list nowadays on the shelf price labels, both for basic foods and processed/packaged. As far as spoilage goes, that's just purchasing what you'll assume to eat. And having a few vegetables go off at the end after you've already eaten many of them doesn't even double the price per unit, while convenience food ranges tend to be many times the price.

gozur88 10y ago

>Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. I don't believe this is true. I've never been able to eat out as cheaply as I can cook healthy food.

darpa_escapee 10y ago

> Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat. False. I started preparing pretty much all of my meals for health reasons and spend much less than I ever did before. When I didn't care and I bought what I craved or sounded good when I was hungry, I was spending close to 50%-60% more at the store. Prepared or processed foods are generally more expensive than others. Packaging, marketing etc are used to influence your purchasing decisions. Example: frozen sauteed broccoli: 2 servings -> $3.49 14oz frozen broccoli: ~5 servings -> $1.09 One serving of the former is more expensive than 5 servings of the latter. They're both healthy choices, but former is a product from a large company that put more into their packaging and preparation. I can throw the latter in pan with some garlic, butter or oil and accomplish the same or prepare them however I like. Still, a lot of processed foods at Whole Foods et al are still not 'good' for you. Organic carbs and Himalayan salt are still carbs and sodium.

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
I think you forgot to factor in your time cost of planning and preparation. What is your time worth to you? Mine is certainly greater than the extra cost of ordering in.