How Much Sugar Can You Avoid(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How Much Sugar Can You Avoid
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/100000004844838.mobile.html?_r=0
61 comments
Fast food is absolutely not cheaper. It is perceived to be cheaper due to bad education and poor judgement. With a cheap slow cooker, bulk brown rice, bulk beans, fresh produce and a little bit of (optional) bacon, you can make a gigantic, delicious, filling, nutritious beans and rice dish for under $5, which will feed a family of 6 in even the most expensive city in the U.S.
Dried beans and dried rice are ~$1/lb purchased in bulk in Seattle. Fresh produce is available cheaply year round at every grocery store. The same goes for salt, black pepper, bulk spices.
All of these except the fresh produce and the bacon can be purchased literally months in advance, and are available online. The fresh produce and the bacon are a once-per-week affair, (which might be a genuine accessibility issue for some). The prep time is literally less than 5 minutes for the whole dish once you have it memorized and can cut a vegetable.
Source: I cook for myself every day. I prefer big cheap one-pot slow cooker dishes.
Dried beans and dried rice are ~$1/lb purchased in bulk in Seattle. Fresh produce is available cheaply year round at every grocery store. The same goes for salt, black pepper, bulk spices.
All of these except the fresh produce and the bacon can be purchased literally months in advance, and are available online. The fresh produce and the bacon are a once-per-week affair, (which might be a genuine accessibility issue for some). The prep time is literally less than 5 minutes for the whole dish once you have it memorized and can cut a vegetable.
Source: I cook for myself every day. I prefer big cheap one-pot slow cooker dishes.
Running is free. There's meetups for free pickup games of all types of sports. Yoga is often free and on youtube. Kung fu is often free and on youtube. Weights are a super cheap one time investment as are rubber bands you can work out at home with. Even gyms are rather cheap nowadays, some without contracts.
If you can't find a way to exercise for free or at extremely low cost, you're not trying hard enough.
If you can't find a way to exercise for free or at extremely low cost, you're not trying hard enough.
I go to free yoga, there are a few places in my city offering. I know Lululemon offers free yoga at their stores in most cities throughout the world.
Calisthenics are also great. Most are surprised by the physique attainable.
Unfortunately the US is awful about free outdoor fitness equipment--I wish that changed.
In many countries you can easily find outdoor gyms, but in the US a playground or even a combination of park benches, a tree, and some railings will do.
For the record 99% of the time I've only received positive attention from this, but sometimes there are haters (usually either homeless people or overweight women in SUVs--just being honest).
The only weights I might buy are a couple of 10 litre water containers -- usually a few bucks at a supermarket -- for shoulder exercises.
Unfortunately the US is awful about free outdoor fitness equipment--I wish that changed.
In many countries you can easily find outdoor gyms, but in the US a playground or even a combination of park benches, a tree, and some railings will do.
For the record 99% of the time I've only received positive attention from this, but sometimes there are haters (usually either homeless people or overweight women in SUVs--just being honest).
The only weights I might buy are a couple of 10 litre water containers -- usually a few bucks at a supermarket -- for shoulder exercises.
> It's become cheaper to feed yourself off of junk food
Has it really though, or are people just drawn to the convenience?
Has it really though, or are people just drawn to the convenience?
If by convenience, you include cooking time, then junk food is pretty cheap.
A lot of working poor juggle multiple part-time jobs or the like (in families, sometimes both adults), so there's no stable schedule and no guarantee you'll have the time or energy to cook on any given day.
A lot of working poor juggle multiple part-time jobs or the like (in families, sometimes both adults), so there's no stable schedule and no guarantee you'll have the time or energy to cook on any given day.
Most poor are not working poor. Many of those that are working don't work that much. Here are the facts:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profi...
The less money you have, the more leisure time you have. That leisure time is just spent in front of the TV rather than working out in a park.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profi...
The less money you have, the more leisure time you have. That leisure time is just spent in front of the TV rather than working out in a park.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm
There are the people that don't fall within those statistics because they aren't technically working poor, but are still not earning a living wage. They aren't below the poverty line but still can't keep up with debt payments. They often work full time and moonlight with a part time job.
Agreed, I was meaning only in terms of direct purchase cost but the value of time spent is a worthwhile factor to consider.
If you include all of the costs of preparing your own meals, I don't think there is any contest. Time is expensive, the opportunity cost of a kitchen is substantial. In many cases, the cost of just those two things alone is enough to pay for all of your meals out at a reasonably priced restaurant. And we have only started to scratch the surface of all of the costs involved.
If you only look at the cost of the raw ingredients, then cooking yourself is tough to compete with. Then again, if you only look at the price of lumber, building your own furniture is pretty tough to compete with too. Is that a good way to look at it? I'm not sure.
Either way, for myself, I would quickly grow frustrated by a diet of junk food and/or eating at restraints frequently. I'll gladly take the time and pay a premium to have my own kitchen.
If you only look at the cost of the raw ingredients, then cooking yourself is tough to compete with. Then again, if you only look at the price of lumber, building your own furniture is pretty tough to compete with too. Is that a good way to look at it? I'm not sure.
Either way, for myself, I would quickly grow frustrated by a diet of junk food and/or eating at restraints frequently. I'll gladly take the time and pay a premium to have my own kitchen.
I lived for a while in a city where soda was cheaper than water... even if this sounds absurd.
Also, junk food was generally much cheaper, usually for the reasons it is junk in first place (example: "chicken" junk food is usually made with ground leftovers of chicken, after the more expensive parts are sold separetely).
Also, junk food was generally much cheaper, usually for the reasons it is junk in first place (example: "chicken" junk food is usually made with ground leftovers of chicken, after the more expensive parts are sold separetely).
Yes. A package of Oreos is much cheaper than fresh produce on a dollars per calorie basis.
I'll see your cherry picking and I'll raise you one:
Assuming Oreos are $2.50 a box, they work out to 840 or so calories per dollar. Russet potatoes at 50 cents a pound work out to 880 or so calories per dollar. And that's using a fairly high price for the russets - in larger bags they can be found for 20 or even 10 cents a pound. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which of the two will leave one feeling more satiated after eating O(2000) calories thereof.
Assuming Oreos are $2.50 a box, they work out to 840 or so calories per dollar. Russet potatoes at 50 cents a pound work out to 880 or so calories per dollar. And that's using a fairly high price for the russets - in larger bags they can be found for 20 or even 10 cents a pound. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which of the two will leave one feeling more satiated after eating O(2000) calories thereof.
Oreos can be eaten straight out of the bag, while Russet potatoes require some level of cooking and preparation (especially if you want them to be as palatable).
Cooking for yourself is only cheaper than eating out if you buy in bulk and buy whatever is in season. Often the capital outlay of this makes it daunting, not to mention the fact that people who are worried often don't have a car to drive to the supermarket and therefore have to carry all those groceries by hand or on the bus.
It's very hard to compete with the local burger chain which is within walking distance and where you can get a burger, chips, a drink, and desert for only a few dollars.
It's very hard to compete with the local burger chain which is within walking distance and where you can get a burger, chips, a drink, and desert for only a few dollars.
No, that's not true. Cooking for yourself is _easily_ cheaper than eating out. You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food.
You can go to the grocery store once a week, cook a few meals to last through the week, and eat for $3 a meal without trying hard. Frugal people can eat for $1 a meal easily.
You can go to the grocery store once a week, cook a few meals to last through the week, and eat for $3 a meal without trying hard. Frugal people can eat for $1 a meal easily.
> You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food.
To be fair, you also pay heavily for the luxury of having the means of production (i.e. a kitchen) at your disposal.
Some back of the napkin calculations show that simply allocating a small area to a kitchen in San Francisco costs you $6-10 per day. That's not even including the opportunity cost and operating cost of having the tools found within the space, or the many other costs of operating a kitchen beyond raw food ingredients. And that alone can buy you an entire meal per day at some restaurants, prepared by someone else.
When you factor in all of the costs of cooking for yourself, I don't think there is any way you can complete with restaurants. They have economies of scale on their side. But it is easy to ignore many of the costs of cooking for yourself.
To be fair, you also pay heavily for the luxury of having the means of production (i.e. a kitchen) at your disposal.
Some back of the napkin calculations show that simply allocating a small area to a kitchen in San Francisco costs you $6-10 per day. That's not even including the opportunity cost and operating cost of having the tools found within the space, or the many other costs of operating a kitchen beyond raw food ingredients. And that alone can buy you an entire meal per day at some restaurants, prepared by someone else.
When you factor in all of the costs of cooking for yourself, I don't think there is any way you can complete with restaurants. They have economies of scale on their side. But it is easy to ignore many of the costs of cooking for yourself.
This can easily depend on what you eat. Both when eating out, and eating in. As such, strawmen and assertions without data will be tough to argue against.
Specifically, I'm sure there are folks that spend more than I do. In either category. Numbers would be interesting to see, and I'm sure someone has them.
Specifically, I'm sure there are folks that spend more than I do. In either category. Numbers would be interesting to see, and I'm sure someone has them.
If you compare the same meal and don't account for the time you spend cooking it, it will be cheaper to do it yourself every time. If you go to fancy restaurants it's not even close.
You just have to compare the price of a soda, ~$3 and up (usually $5), to its price at the supermarket and you'll have your answer. Wine is also an easy one, with at least 300% markup even on cheap bottles. Everything is marked up like that (maybe calling it 'markup' is not really fair as they provide other things and not just a meal, but you get what I mean.)
I've been cooking for years and not even trying to save money meals are less expensive.
You just have to compare the price of a soda, ~$3 and up (usually $5), to its price at the supermarket and you'll have your answer. Wine is also an easy one, with at least 300% markup even on cheap bottles. Everything is marked up like that (maybe calling it 'markup' is not really fair as they provide other things and not just a meal, but you get what I mean.)
I've been cooking for years and not even trying to save money meals are less expensive.
You can't skip on the time. It is one of the main reasons to do fast food, after all. And it has been a long time since I bought soda.
Still, I feel it is impossible to list ingredients and recipes without building a straw man. Research on average amount spent eating out and eating in would be nice to see.
My point is it is easy to save money doing either. It is equally easy to spend more than makes sense doing either. My gut would be that eating in is cheaper. My gut is also that it is easier to waste food at home. Is amazing how many times we let something ruin in the fridge.
And again, neither of those gut checks are data.
Still, I feel it is impossible to list ingredients and recipes without building a straw man. Research on average amount spent eating out and eating in would be nice to see.
My point is it is easy to save money doing either. It is equally easy to spend more than makes sense doing either. My gut would be that eating in is cheaper. My gut is also that it is easier to waste food at home. Is amazing how many times we let something ruin in the fridge.
And again, neither of those gut checks are data.
Wine bottle prices and beer prices are available everywhere. It's not that hard to compare them.
And when I'm eating out, I'm not ordering those... When I'm having a night out, beer. Maybe.
That is, since most eating out is at fast food locations, wine and beer are irrelevant.
That is, since most eating out is at fast food locations, wine and beer are irrelevant.
They are not irrelevant as 'hard data', which is what you requested. If you want to have only anecdotes and personal experiences then by all means stay with what you order when you go out.
Sorta. That is hard data on price of some things. My question is data on what people actually spend.
Consider, many people buy dollar beers at the bar. What I buy at the grocery isn't even that cheap. So, again, straw man.
I'm not asking what people could spend. But what they do spend.
Consider, many people buy dollar beers at the bar. What I buy at the grocery isn't even that cheap. So, again, straw man.
I'm not asking what people could spend. But what they do spend.
It will very wildly city to city, state to state, country to country, and also season to season. Whereas fast food tends to be reasonably standard.
> It's very hard to compete with the local burger chain which is within walking distance and where you can get a burger, chips, a drink, and desert for only a few dollars.
$5 for a good McDonald's meal (fries, drink and burger).
Or spend $3 on a loaf of bread, and $5 on enough meat to make 4 sandwiches or so, and $5 for a 3lb bag of potatoes (which can be cooked rather easily: from baking, to boiling, to whatever).
Basically, the $15 equivalent of grocery store food can get you far more meals than three $5 meals from McDonalds.
----------
Eggs are also like $3 per dozen.
Also, "buying what's in season" is easy as all hell. Just buy what is on sale. Done... and done. If you don't know how to cook, lemme teach it to you.
$5 for a good McDonald's meal (fries, drink and burger).
Or spend $3 on a loaf of bread, and $5 on enough meat to make 4 sandwiches or so, and $5 for a 3lb bag of potatoes (which can be cooked rather easily: from baking, to boiling, to whatever).
Basically, the $15 equivalent of grocery store food can get you far more meals than three $5 meals from McDonalds.
----------
Eggs are also like $3 per dozen.
Also, "buying what's in season" is easy as all hell. Just buy what is on sale. Done... and done. If you don't know how to cook, lemme teach it to you.
Yes, but you have to have access to a supermarket for that to work and buy in (relative) bulk. A lot of the poor only have access to convenience stores and mini marts which makes the equation quite different.
The cheapest way to cook would be to buy whatever meats on special, a bag of frozen vegetables, some rice, and some sort of sauce, it won't be particularly nice but it would be fairly nutritious and only cost a few dollars.
The cheapest way to cook would be to buy whatever meats on special, a bag of frozen vegetables, some rice, and some sort of sauce, it won't be particularly nice but it would be fairly nutritious and only cost a few dollars.
I find that without trying particularly hard or trying to find deals or optimize my shopping, cooking is slightly less expensive than eating out at cheap places. The real gain is total control over my diet and the way things are made. For instance, I feel that almost all food in restaurants is extremely over salted. It tends to be greasy, too. And the cooks are oft stingy with expensive ingredients. None of that conflict of interest when I make it for myself from scratch.
I agree, we make virtually everything from scratch. And it is cheaper and healthier, also if you cook lots at once and freeze things then it doesn't take much time out of your day.
Really? A Big Mac combo from McDonald's here costs around $10NZD (which is about $7USD). You might get something cheaper from a Fish 'n' Chip shop. Fancier chains like Burger Fuel are more like $15NZD for a meal.
For that $10NZD I could buy a decent amount of ingredients from the supermarket for healthy meat+veges meals at home. I guess maybe fresh produce is cheaper here since this country basically runs on agriculture.
For that $10NZD I could buy a decent amount of ingredients from the supermarket for healthy meat+veges meals at home. I guess maybe fresh produce is cheaper here since this country basically runs on agriculture.
I was thinking of the summer stunner meals from Burger King in NZ which is $5 for a burger, a sundae, fries, and all you can drink, McDonalds also has the loose change range.
But really the cheapest meal if you have no money and need to fill the stomach of your family is a $2 scoop of chips from the local fish and chips shop, every suburb has them and not every suburb has a supermarket.
Here, in NZ, some food is actually ridiculously expensive compared to overseas so I can only think the economics are even worse elsewhere.
The point that people seem to be missing is that food is only cheaper if you can get to a large supermarket, which many poor people cannot. They have a choice between convenience stores / mini marts and fast food.
But really the cheapest meal if you have no money and need to fill the stomach of your family is a $2 scoop of chips from the local fish and chips shop, every suburb has them and not every suburb has a supermarket.
Here, in NZ, some food is actually ridiculously expensive compared to overseas so I can only think the economics are even worse elsewhere.
The point that people seem to be missing is that food is only cheaper if you can get to a large supermarket, which many poor people cannot. They have a choice between convenience stores / mini marts and fast food.
>> Nowadays, it's rich people who can afford pricey gym passes and personal trainers
Planet Fitness is $10/month
Planet Fitness is $10/month
Poor people are often time poor too, so you're also omitting the cost + time of getting to/from the gym.
Like, if you live in a good neighborhood, you just go out for a run. If you can afford a bad neighborhood, that's no longer a very safe option.
Like, if you live in a good neighborhood, you just go out for a run. If you can afford a bad neighborhood, that's no longer a very safe option.
False. Poor people have more leisure time than the rich, they just spend the time watching TV rather than exercising.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm
Isn't that the place where they have free pizza?
Normal gyms are ~$30/mo and not uncommonly subsidized by health insurance.
Normal gyms are ~$30/mo and not uncommonly subsidized by health insurance.
Blink fitness is $22 in NYC, has no free pizza and everything you need. I recently went to a $200/month Equinox and the only thing they had which blink lacked is eucalyptus and lavender soaked post-workout towels.
Blink also lacks the 15 minute wait for a squat rack.
Blink also lacks the 15 minute wait for a squat rack.
Disgusting choices. I'm American (born and raised) and found almost nothing edible on any of the pages. As others have pointed out, this seems like a thinly-veiled fluff piece marketing prepared/packaged foods. I do indulge in a Snickers bar myself once in a while, but come on - can't we do better than salami on Wonder bread washed down with Coke for lunch?
The article says "Challenge: Construct a day’s worth of eating, from items at a typical supermarket we visited, that meets the guidelines for added sugars." ... then proceeds to let the reader build meals entirely composed of brand name packaged foods.
This article is a pointless straw man, unless the point is a covert attempt at making the reader realize they should skip the food with the brand names on it and eat real food instead... but that seems way too nuanced for the NY Times.
This article is a pointless straw man, unless the point is a covert attempt at making the reader realize they should skip the food with the brand names on it and eat real food instead... but that seems way too nuanced for the NY Times.
8 packaged trash foods or an apple. I would literally die if those were my choices. You know how hard it is to get 2500 calories from apples?
The dinner choices were the worst. Where's steak or grilled chicken? Basically, the only meat options were a hamburger (with bun) or kosher hot dogs.
Is this seriously the kind of food that Americans eat? If this is at all realistic, then I don't see why anyone is surprised at the obesity epidemic.
It's not, of course. But it takes a lot of awareness to eat well in the US, especially if you follow traditional nutrition advice such as that taught in most high schools (if you were lucky).
Recently I had a friend complain about his weight so we went shopping for groceries together. After he loaded his cart with the usual stuff we went through the labels and he was shocked at bow many empty carbs and sugar he was eating (he had plenty of canned fruits, instant oatmeal, apple sauce, bananas and grapes, all stuff that's usually considered "healthy").
Helped him pick out some chicken, fish, vegetables, nuts and real cheese instead.
Recently I had a friend complain about his weight so we went shopping for groceries together. After he loaded his cart with the usual stuff we went through the labels and he was shocked at bow many empty carbs and sugar he was eating (he had plenty of canned fruits, instant oatmeal, apple sauce, bananas and grapes, all stuff that's usually considered "healthy").
Helped him pick out some chicken, fish, vegetables, nuts and real cheese instead.
No. I couldn't even enter my breakfast cause it didn't just have eggs, or eggs in butter.
It had eggs and kraft cheddar--no sugar there. The lunch was pretty bad over all too in terms of choices.
As mentioned already it's not. However, as a Canadian who now lives in the US, the difference in availability, especially in metro centers, is stunning.
Junk food is a fraction of the price, and it's everywhere. In my home town I used to make my own lunch and eating out was a luxury, because I felt it was too expensive.
Here, as a software engineer I make roughly 3x my old salary for the same job (not representative, but it's my current situation either way), and junk food is 50% cheaper or more. I used to have to take a bus to go to an ice cream shop. Here they're at every street corner. There was only sit down restaurant everywhere I used to work aside the occasional McD and Tim Horton (I didn't work downtown). I work in an equivalent area now, and there's like 40 takeout restaurants within walking distance.
And then you have Foodlers, Grubhub, etc, that are far, far more popular and "accepted". Those things exist up there, but not nearly as many people use them.
So I got into bad habits. Only cooking a few times a week. Eating out is so cheap in proportion to my salary it's a no brainer compared to the time saving.
That's until my health started to suffer, that is!
Junk food is a fraction of the price, and it's everywhere. In my home town I used to make my own lunch and eating out was a luxury, because I felt it was too expensive.
Here, as a software engineer I make roughly 3x my old salary for the same job (not representative, but it's my current situation either way), and junk food is 50% cheaper or more. I used to have to take a bus to go to an ice cream shop. Here they're at every street corner. There was only sit down restaurant everywhere I used to work aside the occasional McD and Tim Horton (I didn't work downtown). I work in an equivalent area now, and there's like 40 takeout restaurants within walking distance.
And then you have Foodlers, Grubhub, etc, that are far, far more popular and "accepted". Those things exist up there, but not nearly as many people use them.
So I got into bad habits. Only cooking a few times a week. Eating out is so cheap in proportion to my salary it's a no brainer compared to the time saving.
That's until my health started to suffer, that is!
Not all Americans. I think it probably also varies by income levels.
I don't eat any of the foods on the "breakfast" or "lunch" tabs, and only 1 from the "snack" tab (apples). I make up for all that deficit by consuming a copious quantity of ice cream.
I don't eat any of the foods on the "breakfast" or "lunch" tabs, and only 1 from the "snack" tab (apples). I make up for all that deficit by consuming a copious quantity of ice cream.
Pretty awful choices on everything but breakfast. Where are the whole foods. The only fresh fruit was blueberries with low fat yogurt and an apple listed twice.
What was really surprising is that there's sugar in every single deli meat. Even beef has sugar in it.
It's still cheaper than an equivalent amount of beef jerky though. Speaking of jerky, I've noticed that cheaper brands are actually pork jerky.
It's still cheaper than an equivalent amount of beef jerky though. Speaking of jerky, I've noticed that cheaper brands are actually pork jerky.
What's important to remember is that everything is okay in moderation.
If you're looking to improve your health/diet then don't buy in to "good food", "bad food", "sugar is evil", etc mumbo-jumbo. Count your calories. Health articles usually make me really angry, and this one is no exception. I totally agree with what it says, though "that still lets you make good decisions".
If you're looking to improve your health/diet then don't buy in to "good food", "bad food", "sugar is evil", etc mumbo-jumbo. Count your calories. Health articles usually make me really angry, and this one is no exception. I totally agree with what it says, though "that still lets you make good decisions".
The article stresses that everyday foods can contain a ton of added sugar without people realizing it. So read the labels when you buy and evaluate all your options, there's more than just soda to keep your eyes out for.
It's easy to avoid added sugar if you make your own food: just don't dump sugar in while you cook.
I think the bigger story here is that for most of human history, every single household cooked because it was the only economical way to feed yourself (restaurants have always been a luxury good). In the US, we've recently had this weird economic inversion where it's become cheaper to feed yourself off of junk food, so now cooking has become some sort of luxury good.
Come to think of it, exercise has followed the same path. In the past, only the rich could avoid physical activity. Nowadays, it's rich people who can afford pricey gym passes and personal trainers while their poorer compatriots also work in a call center or some other sedentary setting.