4 ms·

I can buy a bag of apples for less than what a pack of Little Debbie snacks cost.

sjsdaiuasgdia 9mo ago
I decided to check one of my local grocery stores because I honestly wasn't sure where they stood relative to each other. Most Little Debbie varieties, for a standard package containing 6 or 12 items depending on the size of the items, are listed at $3.19. Apples are commonly sold in 3 pound bags, which the internet suggests would contain 6-12 apples depending on the variety of apple and individual sizing. The 3 pound bag seems like a reasonable comparison to the standard Little Debbie packages, as it's 6-12 "snacks" in either case. The cheapest option is Red Delicious at $3.99. You can spend up to $6.99 for 3 pounds of a more premium variety. Little Debbies cost $0.26 to $0.53 per snack. Cheap apples are $0.33 to $0.66 per. The advantage is also present with larger quantities. A large package of Little Debbie snacks costs $5.49, and a 5lb bag of Red Delicious apples costs $5.99. You're getting 2x the Little Debbie snacks in the larger package, but you're only getting 66% more apples in a 5lb bag. At the larger quantity, LD's per snack price range is $0.23 to $0.45. Red Delicious apples are $0.30 to $0.60.
- threetonesun 9mo ago
  Calorie wise you'd need to 2-3 apples to equal most Little Debbie snacks, but in terms of satiation the opposite is true.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 9mo ago
    I don't disagree. I was responding to the specific claim in the post I replied to: > I can buy a bag of apples for less than what a pack of Little Debbie snacks cost. Satiety was not part of the post I replied to.
- bluedino 9mo ago
  Maybe I should have compared individuals then. One apple can be had for less than dollar and one snack cake is over a dollar Either way people should be eating apples, bananas, pears (as well as cheese, nuts...), instead of snack cakes.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 9mo ago
    When you think of it in the context of a person with not much cash or time to work with, there's other advantages Little Debbie brings... - It's extremely unlikely that any of the snack cakes in a particular box on the shelf have gone bad or have rotten areas. They must carefully inspect a bag of apples for brown spots or risk getting less usable product than they paid for. - The snack cakes can sit at home for a really long time and still be usable. The apples have a much shorter shelf life. This makes bulk pricing more attractive for the snack cakes as there's a better chance all of the product can be used before it goes bad. - The apples require more preparation, dependent on preferences. Yes, you can grab an apple out of the bag and chow down. A lot of folks will want to wash it first. Some will want to cut it into pieces, or peel it, or do some other prep to it before eating. Snack cakes are pretty much always eaten as they are. Add it all up and it starts to become clearer why a lot of economically disadvantaged folks end up making "bad" choices around food. All of these points could be mitigated in various ways, but generally they would increase the financial and/or time costs.
    - darkwater 9mo ago
      Yep, totally agree. Point 3 is probably a bit moot with apples but applies to almost every vegetable out there. But IMO the best selling point for unhealthy, sugar-rich snacks is easy of storage. You go to the supermarket and can buy 1 month of snacks easily, you cannot do it with fruits.
      - zahlman 9mo ago
        I buy 3-pound bags of dried fruit all the time.
        darkwater 9mo ago
        Dried fruits are not as good as fresh fruit though (and can be less palatable)
        9mo ago
jjk166 9mo ago
You're probably not living off either. Deserts are visible - obviously a pack of Little Debbies has no nutritional value and is purely excess calories - but what fraction of your total calories are coming from deserts? The real issue is excess calories in your regular food consumption, such as large portions. Indeed, if your meals were filling you, you probably wouldn't even be snacking to begin with. When comparing things like bread and butter, the ultra processed versions are much cheaper. In absolute calorie terms they have lower sticker prices, but they also genuinely appear to be better value: you can get significantly more volume of food, and it will last substantially longer meaning you can buy in bulk, reduce the amount of time you spend grocery shopping, and spread purchases out to better align with when money is available. More often than not they also require less time and effort to prepare good tasting meals.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  > When comparing things like bread and butter, the ultra processed versions are much cheaper. I can't even fathom what you have in mind as "the ultra processed version of butter". Margarine is a completely different product from a different source. Bread is a relative luxury regardless. The sponge-foam "wonder" stuff isn't even the cheapest for sale here generally. But even then, typical bread is (adding up the macros) only about 60% actual grain by weight (the rest mostly water), going by the nutrition label; so a kilogram of whole grain whatever equates to nearly two and a half loaves. Even whole rolled oats are much less expensive, on this basis, than the cheapest bread I can find and it's not complicated to cook them. At any rate, bread and butter are two of the worst possible examples to make a claim about energy density in "healthy" versus "processed" options. Grain is grain (overwhelmingly carbohydrate and almost no water beside what is added in cooking or baking) and fat is fat.
  - jjk166 9mo ago
    I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      I don't know how else to understand "When comparing things like bread and butter, the ultra processed versions are much cheaper.", other than as a claim that ultra-processed versions of things like bread and butter are much cheaper than non-ultra-processed versions of them.

I decided to check one of my local grocery stores because I honestly wasn't sure where they stood relative to each other. Most Little Debbie varieties, for a standard package containing 6 or 12 items depending on the size of the items, are listed at $3.19. Apples are commonly sold in 3 pound bags, which the internet suggests would contain 6-12 apples depending on the variety of apple and individual sizing. The 3 pound bag seems like a reasonable comparison to the standard Little Debbie packages, as it's 6-12 "snacks" in either case. The cheapest option is Red Delicious at $3.99. You can spend up to $6.99 for 3 pounds of a more premium variety. Little Debbies cost $0.26 to $0.53 per snack. Cheap apples are $0.33 to $0.66 per. The advantage is also present with larger quantities. A large package of Little Debbie snacks costs $5.49, and a 5lb bag of Red Delicious apples costs $5.99. You're getting 2x the Little Debbie snacks in the larger package, but you're only getting 66% more apples in a 5lb bag. At the larger quantity, LD's per snack price range is $0.23 to $0.45. Red Delicious apples are $0.30 to $0.60.

threetonesun 9mo ago
Calorie wise you'd need to 2-3 apples to equal most Little Debbie snacks, but in terms of satiation the opposite is true.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 9mo ago
  I don't disagree. I was responding to the specific claim in the post I replied to: > I can buy a bag of apples for less than what a pack of Little Debbie snacks cost. Satiety was not part of the post I replied to.
bluedino 9mo ago
Maybe I should have compared individuals then. One apple can be had for less than dollar and one snack cake is over a dollar Either way people should be eating apples, bananas, pears (as well as cheese, nuts...), instead of snack cakes.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 9mo ago
  When you think of it in the context of a person with not much cash or time to work with, there's other advantages Little Debbie brings... - It's extremely unlikely that any of the snack cakes in a particular box on the shelf have gone bad or have rotten areas. They must carefully inspect a bag of apples for brown spots or risk getting less usable product than they paid for. - The snack cakes can sit at home for a really long time and still be usable. The apples have a much shorter shelf life. This makes bulk pricing more attractive for the snack cakes as there's a better chance all of the product can be used before it goes bad. - The apples require more preparation, dependent on preferences. Yes, you can grab an apple out of the bag and chow down. A lot of folks will want to wash it first. Some will want to cut it into pieces, or peel it, or do some other prep to it before eating. Snack cakes are pretty much always eaten as they are. Add it all up and it starts to become clearer why a lot of economically disadvantaged folks end up making "bad" choices around food. All of these points could be mitigated in various ways, but generally they would increase the financial and/or time costs.
  - darkwater 9mo ago
    Yep, totally agree. Point 3 is probably a bit moot with apples but applies to almost every vegetable out there. But IMO the best selling point for unhealthy, sugar-rich snacks is easy of storage. You go to the supermarket and can buy 1 month of snacks easily, you cannot do it with fruits.
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      I buy 3-pound bags of dried fruit all the time.
      - darkwater 9mo ago
        Dried fruits are not as good as fresh fruit though (and can be less palatable)
        9mo ago

jjk166 9mo ago

You're probably not living off either. Deserts are visible - obviously a pack of Little Debbies has no nutritional value and is purely excess calories - but what fraction of your total calories are coming from deserts? The real issue is excess calories in your regular food consumption, such as large portions. Indeed, if your meals were filling you, you probably wouldn't even be snacking to begin with. When comparing things like bread and butter, the ultra processed versions are much cheaper. In absolute calorie terms they have lower sticker prices, but they also genuinely appear to be better value: you can get significantly more volume of food, and it will last substantially longer meaning you can buy in bulk, reduce the amount of time you spend grocery shopping, and spread purchases out to better align with when money is available. More often than not they also require less time and effort to prepare good tasting meals.

zahlman 9mo ago
> When comparing things like bread and butter, the ultra processed versions are much cheaper. I can't even fathom what you have in mind as "the ultra processed version of butter". Margarine is a completely different product from a different source. Bread is a relative luxury regardless. The sponge-foam "wonder" stuff isn't even the cheapest for sale here generally. But even then, typical bread is (adding up the macros) only about 60% actual grain by weight (the rest mostly water), going by the nutrition label; so a kilogram of whole grain whatever equates to nearly two and a half loaves. Even whole rolled oats are much less expensive, on this basis, than the cheapest bread I can find and it's not complicated to cook them. At any rate, bread and butter are two of the worst possible examples to make a claim about energy density in "healthy" versus "processed" options. Grain is grain (overwhelmingly carbohydrate and almost no water beside what is added in cooking or baking) and fat is fat.
- jjk166 9mo ago
  I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    I don't know how else to understand "When comparing things like bread and butter, the ultra processed versions are much cheaper.", other than as a claim that ultra-processed versions of things like bread and butter are much cheaper than non-ultra-processed versions of them.