Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Health, Fitness, Food, Insurance, Longevity, Diets,...
Post Reply
smokin
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:24 pm

Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by smokin »

Hello,

first post, so hopefully it had not been previously threashed out. I did look a few pages back but did not see anything related.

my question is, how much do you all consider being frugal vs. spending on long term health.

for instance, I am spending nearly $100 a week of grocercies for daily food. i could cut it to $50 or even $25, but it would be less healthy for me long term.

These are things i'm eating on a daily basis, olive oil, fruit, pomegranate juice, nuts, fish, a veggie shake, grass feed beef, vegetables, all natural sodas and all sorts of vitamins and I've read all sorts of books and articles on what food and vitamins help prevent different cancers, heart disease, etc, etc; and have been changing my diet as best as possible to eat foods that potentially can benefit me rather than foods that are cheap and be bought in bulk but really do not have much benefit like pasta or soups.

Now i could cut down on them and eat cheap every other day, so i'm still getting some benefits; but i feel the 60 and 70 year old me would rather me work another year or two to allow for a greater food budget and hopefully cutdown on potential health issues.

Would love to hear the community's opinion who has probably thought this out.

(and i can post some of my lists on foods best for preventing this or that if anyone desires.)

User avatar
Seppia
Posts: 2023
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:34 am
Location: South Florida

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by Seppia »

smokin wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 2:46 pm
I am spending nearly $100 a week of grocercies for daily food. i could cut it to $50 or even $25, but it would be less healthy for me long term.
Are you 100% sure about this?
DW and I lived in one of the most expensive cities on the planet (Manhattan NYC) and spent much less than $100 per week per person on groceries.

Quick tricks to eat healthy on a budget:

1- never compromise on the quality of the single ingredient
2- eat less red meat: max once per week
3- eat mostly season vegetables and beans
4- carbs are not your enemy if eaten in moderation. Italians have one of the top life expectations while eating 25kg of pasta per capita per year
5- don't drink too much

smokin
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by smokin »

100%.

those sodas are $10 for a week's worth and so is the pomegranate juice and almonds; 30 bucks right there and you generally do not get coupons for fruits, vegetables and meats.

User avatar
Seppia
Posts: 2023
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:34 am
Location: South Florida

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by Seppia »

I buy maybe 6 cans of soda per year, and don't understand the very concept of a "healthy soda".
In season oranges are super cheap and make for a phenomenal juice (for example).
I would try look for a re-design of your food purchases instead of cheaper options.

Ie strawberries in the winter are always going to be expensive: think in terms of "do I need strawberries in the winter" instead of "how do I buy cheaper strawberries in the winter"

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by Kriegsspiel »

smokin wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 3:12 pm
those sodas are $10 for a week's worth and so is the pomegranate juice and almonds; 30 bucks right there and you generally do not get coupons for fruits, vegetables and meats.
Yea, what Seppia said. You don't need to consume all that stuff (all natural sodas? C'mon man..) every day to be healthy. It seems like you've found some things that you like that are "healthy" and you're justifying spending a fuck ton of money on them.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by BRUTE »

Seppia wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 3:01 pm
Italians have one of the top life expectations while eating 25kg of pasta per capita per year
100g of pasta seem to have around 30g of carbohydrates
thus 1,000g have ~300g of carbohydrates
thus 25kg have ~7,500g of carbohydrates
divided by 365 days, that means the average Italian eats ~20g of carbohydrates per day from pasta. that's so low it would easily enable the average Italian to stay in ketosis for the whole year if there were no carbs from other sources.

brute realizes average Italians eat carbs from sources other than pasta, point being: 25kg of pasta per year is nothing in terms of carbohydrate load on the human body.

prognastat
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by prognastat »

I would cut out the healthy sodas and juices. Drink water instead of sodas even the natural ones and eat a piece of fruit rather than having the juice. Juices aren't that healthy as you lose out on the fiber from the fruit, get way more sugars and end up spending more.

Simply reducing your eating out and eating home made meals even if it isn't the most premium of ingredients is already going to set you ahead of most fellow Americans eating out, fast food, snacks, soda, and microwave meals regularly.

I myself make some compromises to food cost for health reasons. I follow a keto diet and as such I can't cut costs by substituting in cheap carbs for calories, however I still manage to keep my food cost under $5 a person per day(not counting the occasional meal out, once every few weeks).

As also mentioned buy things that are on sale/in season. Buy in bulk for things where this is an option. I for example buy 60 eggs at a time as they stay good for a month and we go through them in less than that and it drives cost down quite a bit.

DutchGirl
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by DutchGirl »

You seem to have bought into all the different fads of "healthy food" that are going around today. Some of them may hold a bit of truth, others are going to turn out to be complete bullocks.

I think you're investing too much of your time & efforts into something that is not going to give you the amazing results that it says it will (according to the advertisers of your lifestyle who make money on their followers).

smokin
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by smokin »

Thank you for the responses, will see if I can find some cheaper substitutes and alternatives; but it's still a self debate on how much I can cut. I do drink a lot of water daily, but water is not going to grant the benefits of a glass of pomegranate juice and that's not advertisers or even the pomegranate growers association saying that; that's books and articles written by doctors. So far, if I have to work another year or 2 to be able to have beneficial foods and vitamins into my 50s, 60s and 70s; seems worth while.

SustainableHappiness
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:39 pm

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by SustainableHappiness »

Hello smokin! I'm currently teaching a research methods course and it jumped into my mind when I read your question.

Look at this diagram:

Image

You are on the left. Your results are reliable, i.e. you are consistently getting $50 per week of food based on the hypothesis you have in your mind. However, its the internal validity of that hypothesis that is really in question as others have pointed out!

Unfortunately that's a challenging position to be in because you've clearly read a lot on the topic that says eating X will lead to health Y, now you need to rethink your foundations, i.e. "natural soda is worth it", "I need to drink pomegranate juice every day/week to be healthy", and more broadly,

"There is a narrow dietary path to a healthy life"

Could be the last one that is holding you up in broadening your purchases (or maybe narrowing them?) to lower your food bill?

Edit: Oh god I hope this is the correct application because I said I was teaching this shit. :)

prognastat
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by prognastat »

smokin wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 9:02 am
Thank you for the responses, will see if I can find some cheaper substitutes and alternatives; but it's still a self debate on how much I can cut. I do drink a lot of water daily, but water is not going to grant the benefits of a glass of pomegranate juice and that's not advertisers or even the pomegranate growers association saying that; that's books and articles written by doctors. So far, if I have to work another year or 2 to be able to have beneficial foods and vitamins into my 50s, 60s and 70s; seems worth while.
Juices are really not that healthy compared to eating actual fruit and come at a higher cost. Just through the juicing process itself the sugars are more concentrated which isn't good and many manufacturers try to add more sugar to the juice to improve flavour and in turn sales. On a scale from fruit to a coca cola juices are closer to the coca cola than the fruit. Would you say a coca cola is a great healthy option simply because I mix in a combination of vitamins?

Given that sugar is negatively correlated with health one can argue the water actually does grant benefits the glass of pomegranate juice doesn't in that it is sugar free. It's hard to say which health benefit outweighs the other. One has vitamins, but the other lowers your sugar consumption. You could also argue that the amount of stress from working longer might also carry negative health effects.

I would recommend eating in affordable in season fruits and vegetables to get your vitamins over juices, smoothies or shakes.

Also I would caution against listening to a lot of health advice, when you combine the amount of advice that comes from a profit driven place and the amount coming from ignorance there is a lot of "health" advice that is simply bogus. Most doctor's actually get very little training in nutrition at school so many are as misinformed as the average person is and can just as easily be peddling bad advice either for financial or ignorant reasons. So just because the advice comes from a doctor doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be well informed.

stoneage
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:24 am

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by stoneage »

all natural sodas and all sorts of vitamins and I've read all sorts of books and articles on what food and vitamins help prevent different cancers, heart disease, etc, etc; and have been changing my diet as best as possible to eat foods that potentially can benefit me rather than foods that are cheap and be bought in bulk but really do not have much benefit like pasta or soups
Half of the claimed effects of pomegranate juice can be had from a cup of coffee and/or fasting, (without the carbs...http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fru ... es/10511/2)

Fruits are somewhat overrated in terms of health benefits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039795/
You should eat them, when in season, but not obsess over them, because they are not the key to live healthy.

Full nights of sleep, avoiding stress, not being overweight, and exercising is much more efficient to stay healthy and live long. (check every recent publication on the subject). Stay lean, avoid Junk food, be happy.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15979
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by jacob »

The Walter Longo/Longevity diet advises going easy on the fruits, because fast sugars are considered bad, until you're old and need/want the calories.

stoneage
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:24 am

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by stoneage »

That...^

Quick anecdote : My mother spent her whole life chasing the new miracle ingredient promoted by trendy women magazines, done everything that was supposed to be done, and still got two non-gene-induced breast cancers at 50 and 70 years old, underwent two surgeries, and endured chemo and radiotherapy. She's still standing but no superfood prevented those cancer.

Always think "lifestyle", not "magic ingredient". And even then, nothing is garanteed. I can name quite a few probable events that may render your living habits totally insignificant it terms of life expectancy.

prognastat
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by prognastat »

@stoneage

Agreed, the big ways of improving health are:
- Maintain a healthy weight(technically fat% rather than purely weight)
- Exercise regularly
- Get 7-9 hours of sleep a night
- Avoid stress

Sugar is bad for many reasons, it's inflammatory, it is addictive and is likely to increase weight when consumed regularly as it leads to a blood sugar crash leading to more consumption. You don't need as much fruit as many doctors will recommend and you definitely don't need juice as this just makes the things that aren't great about fruit worse.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by Riggerjack »

To OP, as an introduction thread, I think this was excellent. Welcome.

As you can see, health/diet subjects come up, and there is no shortage of opinions. I don't have much health related help for you, but others will. And expect links. (BTW, there are doctors on every side of every health issue, and studies to back the doctors up. And still the debates rage on. This leads me to think your doctors are no more convincing than others', though I didn't check.)

When you want to cut your costs, though...

Grass fed beef is available on Craigslist from the guys who picked the cow and own the land. If you are buying grass fed beef for health reasons, that's the way to go, I last paid $3/lb. If you are buying it to impress the lady you picked up.at whole foods, well...

Fruit stands and gardens are your friends for better, cheaper vegetation. Container gardens for apt dwellers.

And again, welcome.

Nomad
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by Nomad »

@smokin
I would lean toward going for an optimized healthy diet rich in vegetables, fruit, healthy sources of fat and protein etc.
Aside from living longer, you will probably live healthier for longer.
However, some of the items on your list I wouldn't necessarily categorize as the healthiest.

User avatar
Bankai
Posts: 986
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:28 am

Re: Food costs vs. long term health theory.

Post by Bankai »

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and decided that I'm not going to try saving on food anymore. I'm still going to shop in the same places (mainly Aldi & Lidl), however I won't agonise about spending on things like berries or walnuts (some of the most expensive foods we eat). Also, where available we will opt for organic. It just doesn't make sense to save say 2 hours worth of wages a month by denying yourself the best/healthiest foods. I don't expect our food spending to go up by a lot as a result. We are already seeing the first benefits of this decision - more piece of mind and less discussions when shopping.

Post Reply